un security council resolution 1973 to protect the libyan people. >> thanks very much, dave. i would like to begin by expressing my heartfelt appreciation for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guard from our own nation as well as many others who performed with such great skill, competence, and brave recent military operations began in libya. the special word, and things to their families, whose love and support gives everyone of us who wears the uniform of the strength to carry on. over the past 24 hours, coalition forces have continued operations to implement the provisions of u.n. security council resolution 1973. u.s. and british forces launched 12 tomahawk land attack missiles, targeting command-and-control facilities

service to skirt -- a scud facility and a re-attack of the previous air site. forces from france, spain, italy, denmark, and united kingdom, with missions to sustain a no-fly zone in benghazi, to protect civilians from attack, and conduct further reconnaissance. coalition naval vessels sustained maritime controls toward u.n. security council resolution, to prevent the illegal shipments of arms to and from libya. iss our actions are generally achieving the intended objections. we have not observed a libyan military aircraft operating since the beginning of operations. the naval vessels have returned to or remain in port. cents initial strikes, no regime long range air defense radars.

air attacks have succeeded in stopping regime ground forces from advancing to benghazi and we are now seeing ground forces moving southward from benghazi. we will, of course, watch these ground force movements closely. through a variety of reports, we know regime ground forces that were in the the city -- vicinity of benghazi now possess little will or capability to resume offensive operations -- offensive operations. i note the commitment of all the coalition to conduct operations with precision, very high concern about civilian casualties, and positive control of all of our forces. our actions today are focused on extending the no-fly zone south word, then westward from benghazi, with the growing capabilities of the coalition, i anticipate the no-fly zone will soon extend to re -- brega, misrata, and then to tripoli --

about 1,000 kilometers. in addition to the force as i mentioned previously, we welcome canadian and belgian forces as they conduct operations today. i would note the presence of the french aircraft carrier charles de gaulle and an italian carrier garibaldi have a significant capabilities. finally, we are developing the process by which we will transition the lead of military operations to a designated headquarters. this is a very complex task under the best of conditions. my goal is to not call of this option to the ongoing operation while we affect the headquarters transition. i will now welcome your questions. >> bob burns from ap. to what extent is the u.s. military communicating with rebel leaders to coordinate action on the ground? you mention benghazi and misrata as well.

and what he know about the whereabouts of gaddafi and whether he still controls his forces? about the know much location of the libyan leader, nor have we extended any military effort in that regard. we have expended considerable effort to degrade the libyan regime's military command and control capability, and i think we have had some fairly significant effect in that regard. our mandate -- again, our mission -- is to protect civilians from attack by the regime ground forces. our mission is not to support any opposition forces. so, while we have reports from people reported to be in the opposition, there is no official communication or a

formal communication with those in this so-called opposition that are opposing the regime is ground forces. -- regime that a ground forces. >> from npr. you talked about the no-fly zone moving toward misrata. reports today that libyan soldiers are shooting civilians in misrata. among those lines, do you fear mission creep? u.n. resolutions specify benghazi but might this move on to other cities as well? and also, as a ground guy like yourself, talk about the difficulty of protecting civilians by air when the libyan troops are in and among the population. >> the first step towards countering the regime from attacking civilians, whether

misrata or anyplace else, is to ensure we have freedom of air movement. the first step is necessarily ensuring we are able to extend the no-fly zone and operate our aircraft with a low level of risk. as we extend the no-fly zone westport, i think it is likely that we may encounter some of the regime's mobile air defense systems. where we encounter those, we will certainly attack them. the larger point of how do you apply air power, particularly in very close combat, is a very difficult situation for us. and the identification and of the distinction of forces in very close quarters is a particular challenge for us. we have been very precise in our instructions to the air crews

about what they may and may not do. and we are very, very conscious in obviously limiting civilian casualties. it is balanced and that we as commanders tried to apply, and ultimately these very well trained and disciplined air crews, from many nations, to apply when they have observation on the regime of ground forces attacking civilians. where we can, and can safely without the risk to civilians and causing collateral damage, we have the capability to engage in those kinds of missions. right now, misrata, the first effort is to establish the no fly zone and that process is underway. and until we do that, the ability to influence activities on the ground remains somewhat limited. >> mission creep, do you worry about that?

>> i am sorry -- can you say that again? >> mission creep, can you -- do you worry about that? >> no, i don't were read to much about mission creep. the military mission here is pretty clear -- very clear, frankly. what is expected of us to do -- to establish this no-fly zone, to protect civilians, to get the withdrawal of the regime ground forces out of benghazi. so i don't have a sense at all that there is mission creep. what we are looking forward to it is in the transition from a u.s.-led effort to be does it -- to be designated headquarters. but i am not concerned at this point about mission creep. the mission is clear and we are moving forward. as i say, i think we are so far

achieving our military objectives, consistent with our mission. >> thank you. as you go after the regime's ground forces, to what degree can it be said you are not providing air support for the opposition even if you are not in contact with them? >> we do not provide close air support for the opposition forces. we protect civilians. some -- i suspect some would argue that some within the opposition may be civilians. and if they are attacked by the regime for this -- forces, we would be obliged, if we put us the capability, to try to protect them from attack. but we have no mission and now intended to provide close air support to the opposition. >> can i just follow on that, general ham?

he said there was no official or formal communication with rebels. can you say there are no americans on the ground, a period, with the rebels or on the ground, period, americans of any kind? >> it has been very clear to me -- i think anyone who has heard the president or the secretary of defense speak to this, no american boots on the ground. there are no american votes on the ground from this coalition. -- boots on the ground. frankly, i think they are american citizens who were in libya who chose not to leave. but no one who is a part of this coalition is on the grounds. i don't know how to be more clear than that. no military boots on the grounds. >> david from the new york

times. you said you are not giving support to the opposition but it but opposition were to leave at benghazi, would assume a fence of look -- military operations and get into a clash with libyan forces, what role, if any, would coalition aircraft or coalition forces play in supporting that? >> i am not real comfortable going down the path of hypothetical questions. i would tie us back down to our mission. our mission is to protect civilians. if civilians are attacked, we have an obligation under the security council resolution and the mission given to me, to protect those civilians. we have no mission to support opposition forces, if they should engage in offensive operations. so, i guess i would leave it at that. we protect civilians. we do not have a mission to support the opposition >> don't

you define -- even now, rebel forces who are in benghazi as civilians, in effect? if there were attacks on man holding guns who are rebel forces, would you not protect them? >> it gets a little bit and into some very specific parsing of this question. again, who exactly is this opposition? it is clear to meet simply from watching the reports from many of the organizations that are represented in that room, that many in the opposition truly are civilians and they are trying to protect their homes, families, and businesses, and in doing that some have taken up arms. but they are basically civilians trying to protect their civilian lives, businesses,

families. also, having seen reports from many organizations in the room, there are also those and opposition that have armored vehicles and have heavy weapons. to me, that says that those entities and those parts of the opposition, i would argue, are no longer covered under that " protect civilians" clause. it is not a clear distinction because we are not talking about a regular military force. it is a very problematic situation. what we tried to do and what we are charged with doing is when there are threats against this civilian populace, we are obliged under the mission and security council resolution to try to protect them. again, sometimes these are situations that brief much better in headquarters then a cockpit of an aircraft.

the instructions that we have given to our crews, to include down to the need board, information, to be very judicious and application of force. when they see a clear situation where civilians are threatened, then they are authorized to, and have in the past, taken action to protect those civilians. if it is a situation where it is unclear that it is civilians who may be being attacked, then the crews are under construction to be very cautious and not apply military force, again, unless they are convinced that doing so would be consistent with the mission to protect civilians. >> general -- chris lawrence from cnn. how did the bombing of muammar gaddafi's compound tie into the mission of protecting civilians?

>> i caught a little bit of static -- but i think the question was about attacking -- that attacks on the compound last evening. was that correct? >> how did the attack on gaddafi's compound tie into the mission of protecting civilians? >> ok. i got you loud and clear that time. this is a large compound. maybe 500 meters to 700 meters by 10000 more meters. a pretty big place with lots of different buildings and facilities inside of that compound. there are some air defense systems and the perimeter, security. there's housing. there's normal things -- mess a kind of facilities. and there is also a command and control facility -- certainly is a command and control facility

and we have multiple means that tell us that. that is the facility that was attacked. we do so with tremendous precision. we do so with that particular target. it was decided upon because degrading -- degrading that command-and-control facility would degrade the regime possibility to control his military forces in the attack of civilians. so, we think there is a very, very direct relationship between the attack on that target and the mission that we have. >> jennifer brennan from fox news. we have heard repeatedly from pentagon officials and military commanders that gaddafi is not a target. can you see a situation where he remains in power -- are you worried that it will end in a stalemate? does that concern you? >> i do see a situation where

that could be the case. i have -- again, perhaps it is easier for me to address that than it is for others, because i have a very discreet military mission. i could see accomplishing the military mission, which has been assigned to me, and the current leader would remain with the current leader. is that i deal? i don't think anyone would say that is ideal. but i could envision that as a possible situation, at least for the current mission that i have. i would reiterate, though, that i have no mission to attack that person, and we are not doing so. we are not seeking his whereabouts or anything like that. we think we have been very effective in the degrading his ability to control his regime

forces. and we think we are seeing that play out in various parts of the country. >> any change in the coming days? >> not significant change. the best news that i would pass on it is we are seeing a growing -- growing contributions to the coalition, and non-u.s. contributions. yesterday we had, i think, we flew about 60 sorties, about half of which i think where u.s.. today i think we are in the 70 or 80, something like that. overwhelming percentage of those -- certainly well over half of those are nine-u.s..

-- non-u.s. we added today canadian and belgium. will other nations will continue to join us. some have made firm offers and we expect to see their forces operating in the next day or two. certainly we -- we look forward to that. that is the biggest piece of this. then, the extension of the no- fly zone essentially a cross the coastal part of the country, almost from boundary to boundary, which will enable us to have a greater freedom of movement. and the other thing it provides is a greater ability for humanitarian assistance to be delivered in those areas of libya, which it may be required. what we possessed -- certainly a very significant can edit

capability. my sense is unless something unusual or not -- or unexpected happens, we may see a decline in the frequency of the tracks. we saw certainly from the first night, the level of tomahawk the tax, the second night, a dramatic reduction. and i think we will see that as well because the nature of the type of targets. also indicative of the effects we have that with the initial target, that we did not have to re-attack so many. but we do have the capability do that. no one should have any doubt about the remaining kinetic capability that is resident in this force, nor the will to use them. we have the capability. we have the authority. and as required, we possess the

capability to bring overwhelming combat power to bear, as we have done in the initial stages of this, where it has been required. >> given all you said, what you expect to do in the coming days, it sounds like there will not be a handoff of u.s. leadership to other countries any time imminently, even though we were told in the beginning that it would be within days. are we talking the end of the week, at least, that the u.s. will be in the lead is still? >> i would not put a date certain on this. of course, the first thing that has got to happen is the identification of what that organization is. but we are, have been from the start, planning how we could affect this transition once the follow on headquarters is established. it is not so simple as having a handshake someplace and saying, you are now in charge.

there are complex, technical things that have to occur, particularly in the management, command-and-control of the air campaign, to make sure that, one, we have no this option whatsoever in the ongoing operation. two, that we put none of our air crews at risk as we go through the transition, to wherever the follow-on headquarters will be. it so, there are complex task that have to occur. but i would also say, we are ready to begin that process immediately as soon as the follow on headquarters is identified. and we will accomplish that transition as expeditiously as we possibly can. i do not see this as being a prolonged situation. but we need the identification of the headquarters, and then we will begin that process and move on. what will enable the process to

move forward very quickly, frankly, is the presence of a very large number of coalition members. we have representatives here at the headquarters at the united states africa command. more importantly, aboard the mouth -- we have the joint task force. coalition members there at the joint force air component commander. again, where all the various nations are flying, and they all have representation and are engaged in the management of the air control business. so, it is not like we are starting from scratch when this process begins. we have a very robust coalition ongoing now and we will be able to make this transition expeditiously once the decision is made. >> have you got evidence of the

gaddafi's regime receiving any support by other countries in the world after the u. n resolution -- arms and other things? >> could someone repeat, please? >> the question had to do is if you are seeing any evidence since the passage of libya receiving support from other countries? >> one more time, please? >> what you have seen any evidence since the passage of the u.n. security council resolution of libya receiving any material support from other countries? >> ok. i heard you loud and clear that time. i have seen no evidence of that. i think the united nations security resolution speaks for itself. the international community condemning the actions on going in libya, when the regime was

attacking its own citizens, it felt compelled to act. i see no evidence of other nations supporting this current regime. no evidence that i am aware of whatsoever. >> tell me what bloomberg news. what support at this -- tactical and strategic level are you getting from u.s. intelligence in terms of targeting information, information on the morale of libyan forces, and the composition of the rebels? >> obviously, i don't know -- don't want to go into detail about what kind of support, other than to say that u.s. intelligence community is very active and has been tremendously supportive -- united states africa command, joint task force, in helping us a better

understand the conditions under which we are operating. of the free flow of information -- we had representatives of many in the intelligence community here in piece card. and each of the command notes, where that is necessary. so, the intelligence support -- i would say, tony, that i am a very, very pleased with the level of intelligence support that i have been receiving. do i want more? sure, every commander. i would like to be booked as their consistently at every part of the country and know exactly -- i would like to be able to stare consistently at every part of the country and know exactly what is going on. but we have the access and authorities to get the information we need to support our operations to a degree that

i would say has been very, very supportive of our mission. >> that colonel gaddafi is poised through the use of surrogates to conduct terrorist attacks in africa, europe, or even the united states? a la twa 800 or that magnitude. then you cut off, but i think the question is value -- >> you got cut off, but i think the question is about terrorist attacks by use of surrogates or others based on that activity. a very, very legitimate concern. i think one of the things that i am conscious of, not only as the commander of this particular operation, but more generally across the united states africa, and is, does this present an opportunity for al qaeda or its

associated groups to seek an opportunity while there is this unsettled nature in libya, to perhaps establish or maybe in some cases reestablish a foothold in particular parts of the country from which they could train, organize, or conduct attacks against america, americans, or american interests. we are monitoring that very, very closely. again, i would go back to my previous answer to say that lincoln's use -- linkages with the intelligence community are very sound. there is no higher priority for this, and then the protection of america, americans, and american interest from terrorist attack. and we watch that very closely. >> gaddafi-directed attacks. any indication he has the intent to do that?

>> i have not seen anything specific to that regard. but i think we must operate under the assumption that he would like to see that happen. we must necessarily keep our guard and our vigilance very high. >> aljazeera english. do you have the ability to distinguish the opposition forces from the gaddafi forces? the reason i ask, if opposition forces are moving in a coordinated fashion, could they in fact be targeted as well? >> the distinguishing between opposition and regime forces can be very difficult, particularly when they are in very, very close contact.

again, our experience is that many in the opposition are basically civilians trying to protect their homes. but we also are clearly aware that there are some in the opposition -- they have armored vehicles, they have heavy weapons. we have seen in news reporting that some -- certainly some have even limited offensive capability. so, this will become a particular challenge for us should that eventuality occur. i would go back to my response to an earlier question and reiterate, we have no authority or mission to support caught the opposition forces in anything they might do. what we do do is base our judgment on that action of ground forces. whatever and they are, in that they are attacking civilians, then we have a mission to protect those of civilians. if opposition forces somehow get

engaged in other operations outside of that mandate, then that is outside of that mandate. >> opposition forces tried to take back a city that adopt a hold of -- what new argued they would be attacking civilians and would they be targeted as well -- if opposition forces tried to take back a city that gaddafi holds. >> i am not crazy about answering hypothetical questions. it we would have to look at that situation as they are unfolding. we do have a mission to protect civilians and we would have to make an assessment as that unfolded as to where the actions might be, consistent with 1973 and consistent with our mission. >> wrapping up -- david? >> cbs. i am still unclear what a libyan army unit has to do so it will

not be attacked from the air? does it just have to cease fire or does it have to retreat out of and away from all of those cities that you are talking about, establishing a no-fly zone over? >> there is no intent to completely destroyed the libyan military forces -- completely destroyed. but those forces who are attacking civilians, posing a threat and not complying with the direction of the international committee, then those forces can, have been, and will be attacked. what we look for is, to the degree that we can, to discern intent. for example, if we were to see, and have seen, regime ground forces in a particular area,

perhaps some area just 50 kilometers or so south of benghazi. while we could attack them, we watch them and we see what do they do. if they start moving southward, away from the areas of conflict, then we will maintain observation to see if they continue moving, do they get out of way, not attack civilians. if they do, they are compliance with that, we will not attack them. if they are not compliant -- if they stop, if they take up defensive positions. certainly if they pose a threat to civilians, and then we can and have and will attack those forces. there is no simple answer -- if you are at a point a you get attacked, point b the one thing is certain, if you are

threatening or attacking civilians, then that falls well within the mandate and well within our mission. >> if they dig into a defensive position to protect themselves, and that is not good enough for you and you can attack them? >> it depends, again, on where they are. the president and others have spoken about specific geographic areas from which they must remove their forces. if they are compliant with that or perceive it is their intent to comply with that, that is all well and good. my assessment is they are not compliant or not intending to comply with that direction, then i have full authority to direct that those forces be attacked.

>> one quick follow-up, then we have to be done. >> has there been any coalition attacks on infantry elements or armored today in the past 24 hours? >> i don't know specifically. i suspect the answer is yes, just because of the nature of the conflict. it let me take that question and i will ask colonel -- to get a specific answer to that. >> ok. i know there is a lot of interest the we have gone 35 minutes and we need to get the general back to his duties. i will send it back to you for any closing remarks. >> thank you all very much. i appreciate the opportunity to do this. again, what has impressed me throughout the first few days of this campaign, the professionalism, confidence, the

competence, commitment of military personnel from all the nations and, frankly, how quickly they came together to operate very, very effectively. it speaks, i think, in many cases, long -- longstanding military cooperation that allows these kinds of coalitions to come together quickly, and what all of it to be very, very proud of that. i certainly am of the forces of this coalition, and i was proud today to be able to pass on appreciation of the president of the united states to all of those engaged in business in, all of us from all the countries involved should be justifiably proud of what our military is doing in this particular mission. thank you very much. >> thank you, general. >> we will get the latest on the

president that a trip to latin america today during a state department briefing. acting deputy. toner will brief reporters at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. the president is continuing his visit to latin america this week. he will be speaking live today in santiago, chile, on relations between the united states in the region. you can see that at 3:20 p.m. eastern. it again, state of our members and up next at 1:00 p.m. eastern. until then, your phone calls on libya from this morning's "washington journal." in the "new york times." here is a report.

that is what we are going off of this morning. we are looking into what must be done. one newspaper says, now what? let's go to our democrats line in district heights, md.. caller: be good morning. -- good morning. i think the united states should stop acting like a gang of going

into every neighborhood starting trouble. this leader is like a scared cat back in a corner. he can wreak havoc if he knows he will be murdered. when i saw a admiral mullen on c-span yesterday, he was lying. the bottom line is this. if you destroy the infrastructure -- italy has allowed the influence on north africa and what has been going on there. let the other allies do something for a change. it is going to be hell to pay if we get too involved. we cannot go all over the globe acting like a teenager with

their parents' club. host: let's go to wendy in fort lauderdale, florida. caller: we should have little involvement. a couple of days ago, i appreciate that we have the true leaders in every country. texas, california, these people are calling in with a correct philosophy. we should organize. every day is the same thing. we call in, express our opinions, and nothing changes. we outnumber them. things. -- thanks. host: here is what john kerry said last night on "meet the press."

>> we are trying to prevent a dictator from dragging people out of hospital beds where he then kills them. they disappeared. the important thing is to see that in a larger context, we have enormous interest here. personally. making clear to the egyptians and others that are moving towards this awakening that the rest of the world is not going to stand by while people are being slaughtered. host: our question for you is what should the u.s. mission in libya be? how far should it go? there has been talk about the limit as to what the u.s. is willing to commit to. president obama said no troops on the ground.

we are looking at airstrikes. let's take a look at the wall street journal piece. an effective no-fly zone has been established over libya. western leaders have another issue to confront. what to do next. brooklyn, new york, republican. caller: we should be searching for weapons of mass destruction. short of that, what is egypt doing? what is the middle east, the

country's closest to libya -- let them deal with it. host: to you feel we have the responsibility to the libyan people as john kerry was saying? caller: it should be in some sort of support capacity. what is so special about the united states? we are only human beings. are not there other human beings in the area? the egyptians, arabs, they should feel closer to them then perhaps we should. i would like to see more participation from the countries in the area. everyone is saying we should do as how fara question

should america go? should we play a leadership role for his supporting mission. we are checking in with how things are going so far. and air assault has inflicted heavy damage on the ability of gaddafi to fire missiles, according to pentagon officials. misery, democrats line. -- missouri, democrats line. caller: i feel like president obama did the right thing. he waited. i think it took too long.

as far as the guy from arizona -- senator john mccain. caller: yes. it relies on putting more pressure on view in the. they drag their feet on things. these things need to be done. they should be done to the united nations, and everybody should chip in. like the last caller -- [inaudible] the neighbors should be assisting. giving technical support and

ammunition and what ever they need. we should go along with that kind of stuff to support. it is not a revolution. host: take a look at what he was talking about in the "financial times. " they also mention comments from senator john mccain. here is the cn in the state of the union. >> and president obama wait too long on the un to react?

>> he waited too long. we need to support him and the efforts the military will make. our reaction -- i regret that we did not react quicker. the point is to get behind this effort and support it. i say to my friends in the congress that are nervous about another intervention, i am confident we can prevail. if we had not taken this action, the consequences of a failure would have reverberated for years. libya,et's go to the where a washington reporter joins us. i should say good afternoon or good evening to you. you reported on government officials discussing collapsed buildings in tripoli.

what did you see? guest: it was inside the compound of one of the residency areas of colonel gaddafi. it was recently hit in the past couple of hours. [inaudible] host: what is the mood like? what are you seeing? guest: it is quiet. two night of attacks. n attacks. of we do not know what to expect. everybody is a stunned. they were not expecting this to happen. they do not know what to do or where it is going to lead. host: elaborate on the sense of

shellshocked? are they -- how are they taking this? guest: there is real polarization. began a fewcked b months ago when people in the city started uprising. troops came out in an open fire of everybody at one point. that has not happened in a while. we know there were many people of adair. -- out there. host: what will it take for them to lose that sense of fear and get involved? guest: it is hard to get around and talk to people freely. they are very scared.

we have to contact government officials to get out. from the past few days, this is a real opposition here. this is the capital. people work for the government. it is a stronghold. they need to know they can be in enboldened enough. host: what about this building in the gaddafi compound yesterday? guest: i did not quite catch your question. it was about midnight. what was remarkable about it is that there were these human shields around.

they were trying to protect it. they were not nervous that they were just struck by cruise missiles. it was rather surreal. host: how significant is it strategically to have a strike there? guest: the strike happened almost exactly that the americans would not target gaddafi. the strike happened during the press conference. at what point he said that, i cannot quite remember the sequence of events. it was confirmed that they had struck the building, because of its control capability. that may be where gaddafi normally receives visitors.

he has probably gone into hiding somewhere. host: what is your plan for the next 24 hours or so? do you have a way you can get out and talk to people? how did you watch for your own safety? guest: that is part of the plan for the next 24 hours -- to see what we can do. i will have lunch and see what happens this afternoon. host: that was a correspondent for the "washington post." thanks for taking the time to talk with us. what should our position be? that is the question. we have a comment on twitter. the mission should be coming home.

from the "washington post" the arab league secretary-general deployed a team in the bombing campaign. let's go to texas, independent line. caller: i would like to agree with the tweet. we are having economic troubles. this is economically irresponsible to be there. the people that have the responsibility to take out gaddafi should be the ones that have alarmed him. host: republican, from oklahoma. caller: i agree with the last

caller. we should not be in libya. this will lead to mission creep. we are in a desperate economic situation. a dangerous economic situation. we cannot afford this kind of mission in the world anymore. i think this action is the last throes of a dying empire. we need a reality check. in our economy, the bubbles have popped. i am concerned for our country in this respect. host: take a look at the headline in the "new york post" edition. also looking at the "daily news." no sign of gaddafi. what should the u.s. mission be?

our next caller joins us on the international line. caller: a very minimal role that will end in the next couple of days. the french and british are close to libya. this is different from iraq. this does not keep the americans, canadians, germans -- this man has been sponsoring terrorism. people have to take him out. if they miss his compound -- it is a military complex. when this guy is gone, it will be back to square one.

he said in his speech that he would be back to settle his cause. this man has got to go. the u.s. should have a very minimal role right now. the british and the u.k., and the -- a couple of others should do the heavy lifting. this guy is a thug. he has killed many people over the decades. he will do it again. host: let's hear one person on "meet the press" yesterday. >> the goals of this campaign are limited. it is not about seeing him go. it is about supporting the united nations resolution which talks about eliminating his ability to kill his own people.

>> the mission can be accomplished in gaddafi could remain in power? >> that is one outcome. host: next caller in bakersfield, california. caller: i am glad to be talking on this show. i agree with what we are doing right now in essence. when it first happened and we had the americans in there, the republicans said we should do something now. he was afraid if he did, gaddafi could have grabbed all of those people and made hostages. now the small portion they are doing is just right. right now, the arab nations -- we do not need any more

conflict. i am a christian, but i do not have anything against a muslim people. when 9/11 happened, i use the bathroom, and someone had written something racist about a muslim. i would hope that these relationships would stop. i do not believe there is a small percentage of people that are bad. host: minnesota. caller: i am for the tea party. we should not be in libya. we should not go and save everybody. we should use our own oil and save our own oil. president obama needs to be home and stop taking his family with him to work. host: indiana, independent line.

let's go on to tony on our democrats line from california. what do you think the u.s. mission should be in libya? caller: limited. it is a good thing. we stand by idly and did nothing with are for an rwanda. darfur and rwanda. there are bigger issues than president obama taking his family to work with him. host: looking at the international effort in libya, this peace talks about the vanguard of war efforts. -- piece talks about the vanguard of war efforts.

let's look at a comment from twitter. louisiana, independent line. caller: i am angry over all of this. we have no declaration of war from congress. we are going along with everything the you in a says. it is so similar to iraq. when we first went over there, we were told that the babies were being thrown out of the incubators. now they tell us they are shooting people in the hospital. we do not need to be over there.

we need to keep our noses in our own country, which has fallen. we do not need to be in libya trying to steal their assets and oil. host: the speaker of the house weighed in on this. let's hear from senator lindsey graham on fox news discussing the u.s. role. >> we used to relish leading the free world. now it is almost like it is an inconvenience. i want to be a good partner. i want the arab world to see us as a strong, effective partner for their hopes and dreams of being free. the caveat is that it is almost like it is a nuisance. this is a great opportunity to replace i tyrannical dictator.

we should seize the moment and talk about replacing him, not talking about how when did we will be. -- winded we will be. host: here is a comment from one person. a different perspective from a vivian on twitter. some of our callers have talked about what president obama is doing right now. he talks about brazil as a model. he was in rio de janeiro. his trip has been overcharged -- overshadowed by events in libya.

we can go on to see what he is doing next. his next stop is el salvador. here is what the "washington post" says about that visit. democrats line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i was listening for reasons why the united states should be helping in libya. the reasons should be none. they say it is to stop gaddafi from attacking his people. our bottom line is we shot over 100 tomahawk missiles over 24 hours ago. each one costs $1 million.

i do not think millions have been killed by those bombs. we are dealing with criminals in our country, and the united states does not have any money to help its own people. the military complex has taken us over. it will take americans to stand up for ourselves. i love this country. we are in trouble. we better stand up and fight for what is right. thanks. host: here is what one person writes on twitter. dale in houston, texas, republican line. caller: i am of originally from ethiopia. i know what a dictator means.

i do not know why my american colleagues do not have any compassion for the suffering and exploitation of the people in africa. as human beings, we have an obligation to liberate people from exploitation. this is a un mission. the u.s. has an obligation to cooperate. as a superpower, we are playing the role not leading the region. [unintelligible] this man has been a menace to the whole world.

these people need to feel the sense of democracy that we enjoy. this is one way of of fighting terrorism, liberating people. some of the comments calling for criticism against president obama, but these people do not feel the pain of the libyan people. we cannot sit idly without playing a role. we need to play a humanitarian role. the course is justified. we should give 100% support to the un and u.s. participation.

this is corp. for liberation. -- cooperation for liberation. this will pay off. these people will be our friends. i applaud all of the american people, including president obama, for playing such a positive role. thanks. host: lexington, ky. what should the u.s. mission be in libya? caller: [inaudible] host: go ahead. caller: [unintelligible]

the un has not taken similar steps in other countries as it is trying to take in libya. when we have this kind of conflict, people can go down a slippery slope. i do not think we should be in libya. host: the envoy to mexico a is a wikileaks tragedy. the u.s. ambassador to mexico resigned.

the egyptians are supporting changes in early voting counts. the turnout is huge for a constitutional vote. let's go to miami, fla., democrats line. caller: i believe the president has done just the right thing. joining the international community in condemning a dictator or retirement, if you would, is the right thing to do. i believe -- i agree with the gentleman that called. i believe he is from ethiopia. the united states needs to look around and realize is for -- are

for freedom and democracy. when we were fighting for our own independence, many people came to our aid. these things cannot be done alone. it is time that we do not allow the kinds of abuses that are going on by these horrible men, who think they are god's, and forget they owe their service to the people. this is a message that is loud and clear around the world. i believe the united states cannot afford to hide its head in the ground. host: how far should this go? puc a limit to actions? -- do you see a limit to actions? caller: the libyan people are capable of defending their

freedoms. i believe we need to realize -- it is the most humane thing we can do for the world. host: sarasota, fla., republican. caller: i think president obama waited for the you in a to make their first move. everyone looks to the u.n., but they always dragged their feet. i think obama waited for them to make the move. the sad thing was the civilian death toll was rising at the same time. president obama was criticized for coming in late, but it is a fine line and a tough line to decide if he was wrong. we have to be involved.

i hear them talking about economics, the bubble, all of that kid stuff. in the long run, this man is capable with whatever weapons he has, and nobody knows what he has, he could sell them to terrorists, and it could work falsely in the long run. we are a world power. that is where we are put. that is what the u.s. has ended up doing. host: independent line. this is jeffrie. the good thing that obama did what he did by going in and trying to take gaddafi out -- he is nothing but a murderer from the lockerbie bombing.

it is the best thing obama has done. i am glad that we have a limited role in the mess. maybe we can take care of the things in iraq and get our economy straight here in the united states. host: democrats line, cincinnati. what do you think? caller: i am happy that we have a limited role. we do not know who the opposition is in libya. we know there are people that do not like gaddafi. we do not know who the other people are. i am against sending our troops into a situation -- a footnote. i have no problem with the

europeans being ahead of libya. it happened before. let them lead. let us sit back and conserve our energy, use what we need to use in our country. have a good day. host: an opinion piece in the "new york times."

cincinnati, ohio, republican line. caller: we have no business in libya. those people have never liked us. i do not think they ever will like us. we do not know who will be in power after gaddafi. he was part of the lockerbie bombing. the united states did make a deal with him about five or six years ago. he did give up his weapons. he allowed the atomic agency in there to monitor his atomic facilities. he gave up all of his weapons of

mass destruction. he has complied with all of the un resolutions. he was not causing any trouble to the world. i see no way of in toppling his regime. once we got rid of saddam hussein, look at what happened in iraq. we still do not have peace. we do not know who is going to take over. i am worried about this muslim brotherhood and them taking over. i am not sure the people in the united states are getting the true picture of what is really happening over there. host: is it appropriate for the u.s. to hold back and be one of the few powerhouses in the world

not to go in? would that create enough range dynamic for you? caller: not really. i think they are making a power grab for these small countries, for their oil. i think it is more about the oil of gaddafi than anything. he sits on some of the largest oil reserves in africa. i think it is a power grab for the oil over there. host: poland is not participating in this operation odyssey don. world leaders met in paris. the polish position is clear.

restraint in calm response. the "washington post" is dealing with which part of libya is being dealt with. there is the coastline of libya and where the air strikes are happening. new york, democrats line. caller: good morning. host: speak up and go ahead. caller: gaddafi is a tyrant. he brought down the pan am planes.

he authorized it to be brought down and did not care what happened. he is a dictator, and it is time for him to move. host: here is a comment from twitter. detroit, michigan. caller: good morning. i voted republican. i have watched president obamaie in the detroit area, establishing a jobs bank. he is working hard.

i do not have any sympathy for gaddafi. he was poised to murder nearly 1 million people, laughing into doing his thing. he has been in office for 42 years. his whole family runs the government. how can you have so much anti- american sentiment for a president that goes in there with missiles to try to save lives and curb this bully on the world scene? we need term limitations on these dictators. how can you run a country for 42 years with your family? people protests, if you do not give them more votes, but more bullets.

.is it is un-american. at somet's look political stories before we get to another call. former new york mayor, rudy guiliani, says an incumbent president either wins or defeats himself. not much in the papers about what congress will do when they get back. here is a look at possible presidential candidates of 2012. one is honing her presidential qualifications. we will talk about japan in a few moments. this is the latest from "usa

today." the death toll rises in japan. people are still being found alive. and 80 year old wrapped in a blanket found nine days after the earthquake in the tsunami hit. she and her grandson were rescued from their home in northern japan. phoenix, ariz.. what should the u.s. mission in libya be? caller: we should not be there right now. we are in bad shape energy wise, no renewable energy program like we should have. we are trying to get oil, in this case libya. next time maybe venezuela. that is instead of focusing on clean energy, not those that

come down a radioactive plumes. nuclear is not clean energy. that is absurd. we are trying to get oil under any condition. right now it is libya. then iran and venezuela. read"shock doctrine." there will be a military coup in libya. there'll be no leadership for resistance. the military will take over and we will fund a ton of money to them. then we will privatize the oil industry and trigger it over to big oil in the united states.

" coming up shortly, we will get the latest on president obama's 5 day trip and the economy -- and the update on libya. could have been set for 1:00 p.m., but now we settled for 1:30 p.m. also, president obama this afternoon will talk about his life in america trip this week. he will be speaking in santiago, chile. live coverage starts at 3:20 p.m. eastern here on c-span. right now, an examination of nuclear energy here in the u.s. in light of the critical situation in japan. "washington jrnal" continues. host:? spencer from the heritage foundation. thanks for being here.

jack spencer. guest: fangs. everyone has been focused largely on what has been going on in pan -- thanks, everyone has been focused lgely on what has been going on in japan. we are looking at whether or not we should build more nuclear power plants in this country. nothing has happened in japan that is indicative of the underlying safety of the technology. regardless of what is going on in japan, it does not erase the 50 years of safe operation we have had in this country and around the wld. there have been a number of highly publicized actions -- the one that the japanese is dealing with right now, chernobyl, the

and one, three mile island. no one was hurt or injured as a result of radioactive release. the story in japan is still unfolding. chernobyl was very different from the other two. host: we are speaking with jack encer from the heritage foundation. we are taking your calls. the numbers are at the bottom of your screen. would you call yourself a supporter of nuclear power? guest: i has great potential. we benefit greatly from it. we should not build one that is economically feasible. if we have the right policy changes to bear and a change in the economics -- but yes, i support a nuclear power. its potential is limitless.

host: 104 reactors in the united states. our most americans aware of where the plants are in the united states? guest: many of as a live near them. we get 20% of our electricity from them. one of the interesting points in looking at new technology, for those interested in environmental concerns, it provides 73% of our emissio- free electricity. host: obama asked regulators to do a review of nuclear plants. let's listen to that. >> we have a responsibility to learn from this event in japan. we need to look at the safety and security of our people.

i have asked the commission to do a comprehensive review of the safety of our nuclear plant in light of the nuclear disaster that unfolded in japan. host: obama speaking last week. he was asking them to do a regulatory review. he can not order them to do so. guest: the nuclear regulatory commission is looking at these types of things. the president had to make a statement such as that. there is a perception that earthquakes in this tsunamis -- and tsunamis, this is not new to our nuclear regulators and instry. in the u.s., we are constantly going over nuclear plant safety and upgrading it. we need to learn whatever

lessons we can from japan and apply those lessons. if any regulatory changes ar needed, we should do that. host: a comment coming from the associated press by an.p.r. -- via n.p.r. guest: that is something that regulators should take into consideration. i think we need to see how this plays out. the information is so scant at this point. we should not make any broad policy recommendations. host: democrats line. caller: i do not think we can

afford not to use nuclear energy. it is good clean energy for the most part. i think we need to try to learn a little bit from what happened in japan. we should not put nuclear energy plants on the front line. we should not continue running them. after you see what an earthquake can do to a nuclear plant, it does not make sense to do that. sooner or later, you are waiting for something to happen. when it happens, this lesson that we are learning from what happened in japan is a good lesson. we should look at it. we shall not turn our back on nuclear energy.

guest: a great point. some of those close to fault lines are not as close to major fault lines as what they are sometimes described. moving forward, our regulators to a good job of ideifying where the safest place is for nuclear plants to be built. this is an opportunity for us to learn what that process is, so we can move forward feeling safe about it. host: why certain states? guest: many of them are densely populated states that need a lot of energy. you get a lot of energy output

without a lot of land being used, when you are dealing with nuclear energy. nuclear power is a great way to provide clean energy. some of the new power plants seem to be further in the south, where you have increased demand for energy. it all depends. host: here is a comment from twitter. let's start with this idea of government guarantees. guest: i support nuclear energy. i do not support subsidies for anything. we should be able to sell our goods and services on the

marketplace and compete. the energy policy put forth a very limited guarantee program after 2005. i do not support or fight against it. most of the risk associated with our power is government imposed. it is through a waste management policy that is difficult. all of these sorts of things. establishing this is required before people want to invest going forward. a limited program has some justification. host: where do we put the waste? guest: it is a problem of the overall function of our industry.

right now, it is stored safely and efficiently. the federal government said they would take the place, and they defaulted on it for several years. the policies have not been as particular in the nuclear waste area. i work current plan is to put nuclear waste of in a mountain. host: this show which areas are seismically active and where these plants are located. .

90% of the oil from libya goes to france and england. i have friends in the military. we are going to have boot on the ground. sorry to tell you that. guest: well, the agency's plan, they're always looked at and being monitored. some of our plants are getting up on a 40-year time frame. some have applied for life extensions for an additional 20 years. so right now the fleet of our plants are probably going to last at least 60 years and work is being done to see if can be done further. i suspect that those lifetimes

will be in the range of 60 to 80 or even more years. but what's critcrl to bear in mind is that these plants are constantly being monitored for safety and proper operations. host: jack spencer can the heritage foundation. let's take a look at some information from the nuclear energy institute about where the newest nuclear plants are. the laest was in june of 1996 in tennessee. prior to that back in 1993 comanche peak number two in texas. before that in 1990 comanche peak one in texas. and obvious that not any development for a long time. take us through the history of that. guest: well, one of the interesting things to bear in mind to those dates is not when those came in but when the regulatory process began. for all of those began in the

mid 197s. when i mentioned earlier about the government-imposed risk and the regulatory environment, it's not a comment on being too much safety regulation. it's a comment of being too inefficient regulation. when it takes that long, literally decades to build a plant, that creates a ton of sk and unpredictability. when you are talking about a multibillion-dollar plant, that's when you get the government-imposed risk that needs to be mitigated at least for the first one or two plants. that's a big problem. host: mike, independent, buffalo, new york. hi, mike. caller: hi. how are you doing this morning? host: good. caller: my first comment is the guy from the heritage institute. i'm amazed that you guys always have someone from the heritage foundation or the a.a.i., american enterprise institute or the chamber of commerce, all of these apologists for conservative thoughts.

he mentioned that it was nuclear energy was emission-free. well, now he agrees with, you know, global warming and all that kind of stuff. but it's not clean energy, you know, as he mentioned before because there's nuclear waste. one of the biggest problems that they have is nuclear waste is stored on site and one of the reactors where they have the controler stored, that's where it's emitting the plutonium, which is more -- radioactive stuff that they use for the energy. you know -- and i just feel that -- and he was talking about subsidies. he doesn't support subsidies. nuclear energy would not exist it wasn't for subsidies. so -- host: let's leav it there.

guest: let me nuclear power plants do create waste but unlike almost any other energy source that i am aware of, that waste is contained in the waste bundles. so if you took all of the waste that was generated in american nuclear power plants throughout the entire hisry of commerci nuclear power that waste would fit on a single football field about 10 yards high. so volumeetrically there not a lot of waste there. we need to make clear that this is a political problem. it's not a technical one. whether we put it in yucca mountain, reprocessed it, or did some other technical application to it, there are answers to being able to deal with nuclear waste. industry and government does it all the time. regarding this plutonium, that's something tt we've seen percolating in the news a

little bit that reactor three is a mixed plant. it has uranium and plutonium fuel in it. it's important to recognize that the percentage of plutonium is very small. it's about 6% of the total fuel amount in that reactor three. and all of that remains in the reactor. none of that was in the spent fuel pools. regarding subsidies, i don't support nuclear subsidies. i just don't. it's not that i don't believe in the potential of nuclear power. host: governor cuomo has found for a closure of one because it's vulnerable to an earthquake. what's your reaction? guest: i think it falls in the hands of the nuclear regulatory commission. indian point has been one of those reactors that has been a focus of the anti-nuclear movement. not making any accusations. people have concerns in light of wt's going on in japan. none of less, i would --

nonetheless, i would follow the guide of our nuclear regulatory commission. it's important to realize the new york subway, for example, runs off of nuclear power. there are a lot of new york city relies on that energy. so if you take that away you have to replace it with something. host: secretary chu, the secretary of energy, ss where you site reactors and going forward will be different than where we might have sited them in the past, where to place them. and this is in response to questions about the indian point nuclear plant near new york city. every time there is an accident we have to learn from those accidents and go forward. the chairman of the nuclear regulatory commission said his agency will review how we store spt fuel fromeactors. the state of the spent fuels has been a major concern as they try to stem the release of radiation and bring the reactors under control. the n.r.c. chairman, greg

jaczko said, today everybody is worried about the spent fuel. guest: well, let's start with secretary chu d the citing issues. we don't site nuclear power plants just arbitrarily. we go through a specific process, a multiyear sprirmental assessment and looks at the seismic issues. we have a 50-year history of safe nuclear power in the history. do we learn lessons from japan that apply i think we should do that. i think the system in place from a citing standpoint is a good one. now, the chairman and nuclear waste is an interesting topic because he's been the subject of some controversial over yucca mountain. i agree with his assessment that a couple days ago we were worried about earthquakes and tsunamis. now it's spent fuel pools. before we make any broad policy

proclamations it's really critical that we learn the lessons and apply them, allow the japanese to se this crisis through. and we'll learn a lot from it and that should be applied going forward. host: jackie, democrats line in santa clara, california. welcome. caller: hi. he just got through saying that we got 50 years of no accidents. how does that relate to three-mile island? and i think that if people want nuclear energy then they suld be required to live near the unit. people that don't want anything to do with nuclear power shouldn't live near it. unless you can design the spent fuel rods to be redesigned, why

would you want to do that to the planet? a wind -- a windmill, if it blows over, that's not going to hurt anybody. if -- if you have solar paneling on all the rooftops, that's not going to hurt anybody. host: all right. guest: this notion of 50 years of safe operations that i pointed out, i didn't say there's never been an accident. there are ibs dents and accidents all the time -- incidents and accidents all the time. there's never been a major accident that's resulted in loss of life in the commercial nuclear industry and -- host: in the united states? guest: in the united states, yes. that's an important safety record to recognize. regarding three-mile island, that was our most significant nuclear accident, no question about it. there was a partial meltdown there. that had the potential to be really bad. but it was -- it was

controlled. it was brought to a safe conclusion. it was a really bad day for the owner of that reactor. they lost a huge financial investment, but in terms of the impact on surrounding people and health, there just simply was none. the spent fuel and being recycleable. spent fuel isecycleable. that's the problem in this country how we deal with spent fuel. according to law we are mandated to do it one way, put it in yucca mountain. there may be a combination of yucca mountain and spent nuclear fuel that together bring us the best system to manage it. now, regarding other energy sources, the fact is wind and solar aren't to the point where we can rely on them heavily to produce energy. whate need is a strong energy mix and i would simply suggest that energy producers and

consumers e far better ash tores of what that energy mix should be rather than politicians and bureaucrats and that what we need to move toward. allowing energy producers to produce energy and the vernment to set high safety standards regardless of source and allow that system to emer. host: jack spencer, nuclear -- a piece in the "new republic" just came out a few days ago and it talks about the sher noble disaster in 1986. he said it was a genuine tragedy. 50 people killed. it's still unclear what states awaits the 800,000 workers known as liquidators who were sent in to clean up the mess. he said in fact studies have shown that one of the most serious health consequences of chnobyl was the psychological damage including posttraumatic stress. phantom symptoms and suicide rates skyrocketed. fear, it turns out, is one of the worst effects of a nuclear accident.

he asks which raised the qution, is there any cure for our outsized atomic anxiety. for some reason we have a specific fear, a real palpable fear of nuclear energy. can you address the relationship of not only americans but the international community has with nuclear power? guest: yeah. we need to recognize where the technology came from. it came out of a weapons program. and we have been largely told that nuclear and weapons are similar. we've sociated those two things culturally. as commercial foreign relations go forward, a lot of our fears at are in the weapons program i think are carried over with that. i don't know how we get over with that. we continue to educate ourselves, learn more about nuear energy, weigh its pros and cons and learn from places

like japan. but yes need to make sure that we don't deny ourselves access to this really important power source if it makes economic sense, if it can be done safely which i think those things have been demonstrated to be the case. host: me policea, republican in buffalo. good morning -- melissa, republican in buffalo. good morning. caller: hi. i have to comment on the last couple callers. i'll be brief. first of all, for the person at said the heritage center is an apologist for a conservative thought, there's no such thing. there were people with differing opinions and you need to lrn with to deal with that. if you cry about nuclear waist, why don't you cry for the millions of acres of human waste, garbage, that takes up planned fills in this country? and as far as three-mile island , i know you said before that no one got hurt but i do think it did affect the community. so my question is, as far as

safety goes, with regard to energy, we have the recent incident with the b.p. oil spill and there's been questions as to safety valve that could have been purchased that were or weren't in use. is there anything that can ensure lack of corruption in the regulatory system or anything like that to where we can have these safety measures in place? maybe not mandated by the government but just ensure that they're done at the discretion of the power plants? i don't know if i'm asking thi the right way, but i think we need less nanny state type deal and more self-regulation among the nuclear power plants to make sure they are self-regulating. host: you talked about not wanting a nanny state but you are asking to see some real responsibility when it comes to

avoiding human error when you construct a plant, when you run a plant. so how do you bring those two together? who is responsible in overseeing to make sur that shoddy concrete isn't poured into a facily or that workers aren't, you know,lacking off on the job? caller: i think it just needs to get to the point where we have the government and the industry having a little give and take. we don't wan the government in the business too much because then it gets to a point where you do have a nanny state and you do have an industry that doesn't get to have control. host: ok. guest: the caller brings up a number of really good points. let me first say that we often think of regulation, the more regulation the better and that's not always the case. there are examples where so much regulation is in place that people who know how to do right -- the correct oprations, this isn't nuclear particularly but in industry generally, that it doesn't end up bringing about the safe operations that everyone would like to see. let me take a moment to comment

on the nuclear industry specifically. i'm not part of the nuclear industry. it's really important to say that because what i am about to say is good about the nuclear industry. the way we do regulations in this country for nuclear power is interesting. and i think goes -- it demonstrates where it's been so successful. we have the industry itself, the people who own the plants and operas the plants. we have a nuclear regulatory commission who enforces those standards and works with the plants. but we have a thirdeg to that stool in the united states. it's called the national institute for nuclear power operators. in our accident what we learned from is we need a separate organization who was private and independent from the industry and from government. it is there to share information, to show the world if there's a safety problem so that people respond to that because they don't want their peers to see them not operating safely. they do a whole bunch of stuff so we have this three-legged

safety regulatory system in the united states that has worked very well. i think brought a lot to bear of what the caller mentioned. one of the things we at the heritage foundation has recommended is a similar system be set up for the oil industry which i think it was she. some people mentioned about the oil spill. host: ok. let's go to roanoke, alabama. steve on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go right ahead. caller: ok. iorked at a nuclear power plant. when i first started work, we were going to build four 750 kilowatt units. we couldn't build but one because of the cost. now, if you take -- we have 104 nuclear power plants in the continental united states of

america. on average the 750 kilowatt-powered units, how many acres of land would it take to put wind >> the latest now on president obama's trip to latin america. here is today's state department briefing with acting state how department deputy, mark toner. >> i have nothing to announce at the top. >> i have something quickly as it everyone gets into libya. as far as i can tell -- and i do not know because i with on all weekend. -- i was gone all weekend. i do not know any reaction to the egyptian referendum. >> the security advisor did a little bit yesterday in brazil.

but obviously, we applaud the march 19 referendum. the egyptians to an export -- an important step. about 40% of egypt's eligible voters per dissipated and the referendum passed -- participated end of the referendum passed with 70% of the vote. it is cause for great optimism. we will provide a foundation for further progress as egyptians continue to build on their democrat -- democracy. >> were the amendments that were voted on -- any information on whether the amendments that were voted on or crafted by opposition figures? >> what is important is that it is a focus on the substance of the referendum -- the reforms,

rather. the candidates now have three ways to get on the presidential ballot. the president can now only serve two four-year terms. the president is obligated to dominate at least one vice- president and the judiciary's act in the terms of the elections. i know some of your misgivings. certainly, egypt is under tremendous pressure right now. we feel that this is progress. >> i think it is about a month since vice-president biden called for the emergency clause -- the state of emergency to be suspended immediately. it is that still your position, that it should be suspended immediately? >> there is still no word on that. >> members of the opposition say they will not have enough time to prepare for the election. it is noted that the brotherhood

and the remnants of the edp were for the amendment. and do you share those concerns, that they will not have enough time to compete against the more established? >> we recognize there is a time constraint and it is one of the things we are committed to helping the egyptians address in any way we can. but it is a challenge and we are aware of it. one more on egypt? >> did you say that there were some misgivings on the referendum? what i think i was clear in saying that we feel it accomplished a great deal. >> but you said you had some misgivings. what are they? >> i do not think i said that. i said that we acknowledge that things are tough, but on the whole we feel it did a great thing in setting the stage for democratic progress. >> thank you.

>> a couple of things, what calls has secretary clinton made today, if any, specifically regarding libya? and can you talk about what engagement the u.s. is having with libyan opposition forces, if any at this point? >> yesterday, she spoke with the moroccan foreign minister as well as the saudi foreign minister. also, today she has spoken with the president twice and other national security for officials and has received regular briefings from her team. she will also be making to vote -- additional calls. as bad happens we can pass that to you. -- as that happens we can pass that to you. she will be speaking with the secretary on saturday and those commission -- communications continue. >> what level is that at right

now? who in the u.s. is in touch with the rebel opposition? >> clearly, it is at several different levels, beginning with the secretary, obviously, and then down to chris stevens, who is working these issues for us, and that similar credits and others in the bureau. tz and others kres in the bureau. >> can you talk about the nature of these talks? are they sharing intelligence? but i will not talk about -- >> i will not talk about the sharing of intelligence. we do not have eyes and ears on the ground and some of these places. we are sharing information, but also getting their impressions of what is happening. obviously, right now, the focus is on a military operation under

way to the support of the u.n. security council resolution 1973. and the goals of that are to stop the fighting, you know, to force khaddafi into a cease-fire and to provide humanitarian -- to force gaddafi into a cease- fire and to provide humanitarian assistance. >> you have also said that gaddafi has to go. obviously, you are there to protect the civilians, but what is the larger u.s. goal here? how do you square "gaddafi must just protecting civilians? there's a lot of wiggle room in this resolution to help the opposition. what happens after the no-fly zone is imposed? >> i recognize there are a lot of steps in front of us and you are right to differentiate what

you are doing right now in terms of the house resolution 1973 and what we are doing to implement that, and what possible next steps there may be. we have made it clear that in the long term we do we are going to, in the long term, continue to apply pressure on him and his associates. 1973 does offer some additional added pressure on gaddafi himself and his regime. but we are going to continue discussing the opposition, trying to get a feel as they develop as well as an opposition. but that is separate and apart from what is going on right now with the military operation. >> the last question i was going to ask, as far as talks with the opposition, are you asking them not to re-engage with gaddafi

forces, telling them to step back, don't fight, we will be pushing the regime loyalists back? >> we want to see a cessation of violence. but beyond that, i cannot tell you what operationally we are advising -- we want to see a cessation of violence. we had gaddafi poised to basically go in the and -- go in and reduce benghazi to rubble. that prompted the military action we are seeing under way. we are trying to end the violence. we have made progress to that end. but as to what we are and by the opposition, i do not want to -- >> but the pentagon has said that you could end up in a situation where gaddafi bang does stay in power. how do you square that with

secretary clanton's statement that gaddafi must go, -- secretary clinton policy statement. you could have an extended no- fly zone and a partition of the country for a long time like to iraq. >> we could have a lot of scenarios play out, which is why i did not want to get into speculating about each one. our immediate goal is the no-fly zone, our peace of that, and then going forward and continuing to apply pressure on gaddafi and his regime. >> would you say your policy toward libya is ad hoc? what is the grand jury >> sure -- i am sure it -- certainly not going to embrace your characterization, no. >> when you talk about the opposition, are you talking about one group informally led by a particular person or different groups?

>> it is more broad based and we are trying to get a sense -- i mean, the opposition has been coming together for some extent but obviously they have been under tremendous dress but we are talking to many elements. i did not want to characterize beyond that. james, sorry. >> thanks. a couple of things. first, would you just lay out for us what you believe to be the status of the campaign right now? have we effectively established the no-fly zone we were seeking to establish? >> that is a better question better directed to the pentagon. i know they have given operation of briefs that i think positively assessed where we are right now -- so far. and we talked about what will now be a transition into a broad-based " -- coalition, perhaps led by nato -- led by the nato command and control.

again, i am just going from what i have seen from the pentagon, it has been successful. >> two more questions. sense of the military action is authorized by a u.n. resolution that provides only for the protection of civilians as its primary goal, are we to infer that the successful attack on the gaddafi's compound was either in the state or collateral damage? >> i am aware of what you are talking about -- in terms of targeting, i would direct you to pentagon, the part of the fence. however, they have said they will go over commands -- go after command and control aspects of gaddafi's forces and that may have been the case. >> the last one.

tom donnelly and in his briefing repeatedly made a reference that it is the goal of the united states to pursue its own unilateral policy, separate and aside from the u.n. actions, to present gaddafi with choices. and pursuant to gaddafi leaving, the way he put it. just for the sake of clarity, 4 colonel gaddafi's clarity, for my clarity, the world's a clarity, what are the choices that you want gaddafi to see that he has? >> there are a series of choices. again, this is not -- and the president and secretary made it clear this is not the outcome the united states or any of our partners socked -- sought. after the security council resolution 1973 passed, we gave the gaddafi regime an opportunity to declare a cease- fire. they did, but they didn't.

we saw actions on the ground that belies that statement. there was another opportunity where he had a choice, and he made the wrong choice, he chose poorly -- to quote a famous movie. what we are trying to do is convince colonel gaddafi and his regime and associates that they need to step down from power, that they are de-legitimized, having turned their weapons on their people -- >> but as a practical matter, how are you driving gaddafi to make the right choice when you have also made it unmistakably clear that the moment he steps down, he will be treated as a war criminal. how are you helping him make the decision you want him to make? >> well, james, what we are trying --

>> the choice is staying in power are being treated like a war criminal, correct? >> it is not for us to present him with a golden parachute after what he has done. >> secretary clinton -- wait, i forgot my question now. [laughter] >> two really easy ones -- >> before i forget it, may i? everybody said arab support was critical for this coalition. not only support, but leadership and participation. so far we only have one arab country, qatar, taking part in this coalition. you expect as several others like the uae, kuwait, jordan -- where is this arab support? and there have been inconsistent statements from the arab league over whether this was what they signed up for. isn't this what you are afraid of, that the arabs, when it came to show their support, they

would not offer it? >> it has been clear throughout this process that we are looking for, and in fact, asking for, arab support. in fact, one of the motivating factors for security council resolution 1973 was that the gcc and the arab league came out and ask for that assistance for libya. you are right, qatar has stepped forward, offering their assets. we want to see arab support. it is really up to -- and i think admiral mullen spoke about this yesterday -- it is up to them to characterize what that support will be. >> would you say arab is not as firmly in the leadership and artistic -- partitioned pick -- participating role that you looking for, which was the motivation for passing the resolution and the united states getting involved? the united states told arab states we will not do this unless you have skin in the

game. >> where initially the u.s. had certain capabilities that were brought to bear in the early stages, and we believe we have brought,. support, as we move for -- >> if you don't see that support, if you don't see more arab nations taking part, is there a possibility the u.s. will withdraw support for the no-fly zone? >> i will just say we believe we have that broad support. >> one arab country is enough support? >> i did not say that. >> but i am asking you -- >> we appreciate that qatar step 4 -- >> you have one, is that enough? >> we believe we got arab support. >> but you said you wanted arab participation and leadership.

>> if they don't admit what they are doing? assuming they are doing anything other than qatar. >> again, i just think we need to let this process play out and move forward. you know, we are at a stage now obviously where it is quite clear that the u.s. and other key allies have certain assets brought to bear. this will be an operation moving forward. it will be a short-term operation, but we are at the very beginning. and i don't want to characterize it one way or another. >> the you think more arab countries will move forward -- do you think more arab countries will move forward -- in the line related to this. i believe they uae said it will focus on humanitarian. >> that is support. >> that is good enough in participation and leadership? humanitarian actions on the part of --

>> i would qualify that as support. >> two very easy ones that you might actually cancer. -- answer. >> would yoi was going to ask iu agree that your policy is a failure. the president of morocco was in town -- was that a person? >> it was on the phone. it was easy, thank you. >> the resolution calls for the protection of civilians. well the coalition act to protect civilians who support -- will the coalition acted to protect civilians who support gaddafi? >> i am sorry -- in what way? i am not clear. >> there are people in libya right now, for what eve reason, -- whatever reason, who are out demonstrating support

for adopted. well the coalition acted to protect them? >> we do not want to see violence perpetrated against innocent civilians? >> hold on -- will you attack opposition forces to protect civilians. >> frankly, i will not answer a hypothetical. >> it is not a hypothetical. is it your understanding of this resolution that it allows for the coalition to protect pro- gaddafi civilians? >> the security council resolution authorizing to take all necessary measures to protect civilians. >> regardless of whose side they are on? >> all civilians. you are asking me to answer a hypothetical that is not correct right now -- current right now. >> i am not asking you if it is going to happen?

>> my understanding -- again, just looking at the facts. but often rises to take all necessary measures to protect civilians. >> your understanding it applies to pro-gaddafi civilians as well? >> libyan civilians. >> of the rebels' civilian? >> we believe gaddafi took up arms against his own people and is reaping the consequences of that, which is that these people are defending their lives. >> a rabble is an empowered civilian -- a rebel is an empowered civilian? they bear arms. it seems they did not meet the definition of being a civilian. >> guys, look, i will go with what i said, onset, is we are in an operation right now trying to end the violence, protect civilians, bring humanitarian aid to those civilians under siege from gaddafi's forces and

end the violence but that is the immediate goal. i just did not want to parse out -- >> operational briefing, they defined the rebels and opposition as the civilians who are trying to protect their homes. which leaders of these civilians is secretary clinton speaking to? >> we are speaking with a variety of people in the opposition, and i don't really need to characterize beyond that. go ahead. >> would it be fair to say that is the extent of this operation is simply to create the space for the people of libya to work this out with gaddafi themselves? >> i think what we had with benghazi andces in

elsewhere was untenable. at the international community recognized that and spoke with a very unified voice, saying that -- that's it? were done? speaking with a unified voice saying we will take the necessary steps to end the violence being perpetrated. we said all along that we believe that once gaddafi took up arms against his people, that he and his associates, his regime, lost legitimacy to govern and need to be held accountable. what you are suggesting to me does not sound like that. those are the longer-term goals. >> let me also ask you -- given that the president is in the southern hemisphere right now, there is already a lot of

political consternation here in the u.s. about the u.s.'s decision to take the leading edge on establishing a no-fly zone. is the secretary going to be acting as the president's surrogates to talk to members of congress about why the u.s. is doing this and what it is planning to do in terms of trying to shift to a nato-led, whatever-led coalition in the coming days? >> certainly, the secretary is always willing, able, and ready to help inform members of congress about what we are doing. and i am sure the same goes for the secretary of defense as well. >> are you looking for colonel gaddafi, in order to bring him to justice for the crimes that you said he committed against his own people? second, how can you protect civilians when still colonel gaddafi is killing his own

people right now because you have only no-fly zone? >> as matt just characterized, the u.n. security council -- council resolution 1973 authorizes the use of all means to protect civilians. and so, we are focused on that, ending the violence. your first question about gaddafi -- it is not directed at him -- or did you want to change subject? >> my question is. turkey is opposing the idea of nato involvement in libya. how are you going to manager differences with the turkish government, and what specific role do you think or do you expect from turkey? >> turkey is a close ally, obviously, and also has considerable military assets within nato.

i do not want to convert -- characterize what their role is because it is up to them, and within nato, those consultations are ongoing. i do not want to get out in front of them. but we obviously consider turkey to be an invaluable partner in these kinds of situations. canada back to you? -- can i get back to you? >> i.t. ready to announce -- >> we are still trying to establish a protecting power and i will let you guys know. >> can we move on to yemen -- >> can we wrap up libby and then go to yemen? >> of libya. >> on the 11th of this month, almost 10 days ago, the former ambassador to washington, and a former ambassador to the united nations, came out and clearly

said that after their meeting with the government, that their identity you are interlock duty with -- is there anyone else in libya that you are in contact with? besides the national council? >> again, i cannot going to attend to give you a play-by- play of who we are talking to. but he is one of the people we are in contact. >> you recognize the council as the legitimate whatever authority, political party in libya? >> no, i am not going to -- >> you said earlier that the 1973 -- resolution 1973 gives added pressure on to that the bank. can you elaborate? -- added pressure on gaddafi. >> it authorizes states to take all necessary measures to enforce the arms embargo, including the section of aircraft and vessels transporting arms or mercenaries, which had been

obviously a problem. in violation, we can match aboard those ships and now we have the legal authority. we can also provide for the freezing of assets of libyan authorities and imposes aviation restrictions, targeted sanctions on other regime figures. >> sells the not provide -- and not provide added pressure. >> that provides pressure as well. >> one last one on libya. >> i am ready to go to yemen. [laughter] >> literally or predictably? -- figuratively. if i understood you, you feel you have air support. is it fair to say you are not making any particular special efforts of them to increase that support, sure it up, for more arab countries to join you? um i think it is ongoing.

i see this as a continuum. my answer is, yes, of course, we will continue to speak to our arab partners. and obviously seek their support. and also seek other guidance as we move forward in this process. >> why isn't colonel gaddafi a target? dam it is not the goal of 1973. >> is there a possibility of a diplomatic solution and there is a cease-fire? >> only that he would leave power. >> 1973 -- three countries -- germany, brazil, india, abstained. what is the kind of support you are receiving from these three countries? then i am sorry. i missed the last part. >> what level of support are you receiving from these three countries to abstain from the 1973 resolution? >> they are obviously going to be consulted with moving forward. i will ask them to explain their

votes. beyond that, i did not have much to say. >> on those abstentions, will there be any repercussions for those non-votes? three countries -- not just in the. you are saying, no? >> not that i am aware. >> on yemen, is it time for presidents saleh to step down? i mean, every minute it is another top cabinet official, military general, ambassador, everyone is leaving. is it time? >> we are monitoring the situation closely. we understand that he dissolved his cabinet, dismissed his ministers, and announced a caretaker cabinet or government until ministers are named. our position remains that we

feel that there needs to be a process in place that leads to a peaceful solution to yemen's current political situation, and this must include genuine participation by all sides. ed has to be an open and transparent process -- it has to be an open and transparent process and addresses the legitimate concerns of the yemeni people. beyond that, it is very fluid and i am aware of the french -- but at this point my focus -- >> directly in touch with the president -- the >> let me -- did you have another question? and nicole's question as well. in egypt, libya now, when many people were on the streets and the leader of the country open the violence against peaceful protesters, you said it was time for them to go, that they lost all authority to lead and they

should step down. why is the situation different in that yemen? basically his whole government has resigned. his top military generals. and he is opening up force against his people. why is the situation different? >> again, while we have always, throughout the wave of change that is taking place in the middle east and north africa, that we support universal right. it is difficult to compare one country to another -- >> our universal rights being respected in yemen? >> we believe that they need to be respected, and that president saleh needs to take more steps. clearly what he is doing and have done so far is not enough to address the concerns of his people. he needs to do more. i and stand this is a very fluid situation. as well, i think the general resigning, announcing his support for demonstrators. if we want, and what we hope

for is that their actions will encourage president saleh to take the necessary steps to promote a meaningful dialogue that addresses concerns of his people. we support the violence. we want cessation of all violence against demonstrators. they deserve to peacefully carry out universal rights. >> i am curious -- what is the tipping point to a -- point? to nicole's point, as anybody in this building reached out to present saleh? >> i can check on that but i am not aware there has been in the past 24 hours. >> what is the tipping point? what was the tipping point for president mubarak or colonel gaddafi? >> it is not for us to decide what the tipping point is, it is for the people of that country. >> it seems like they have decided. >> then what we want to see is a

humane process and solution to the situation, as to call for elsewhere. -- would call for elsewhere. but at least three times in the past month the white house has condemned the violence the yemeni government has exacted against the protesters who have been out in the street. each time there has been a phone call either from the president or vice-president to president saleh through said, you are right, i messed up, i will open up the political process and make it easier for people to protest. i will have soldiers turned guns against the people but every time there is an escalation of violence. what is the tipping point? and is the only reason why the u.s. has not gone ahead and called for mr. saleh to step down is because of human possible cooperation in trying to deal with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula -- yemen's

cooperation in trying to deal with al qaeda? >> we are concerned about the violence in yemen. the president condemned it friday. i believe the white house has spoken to president saleh -- not the president, but john brennan, it reiterated our views. we made it quite clear that any humane government needs to refrain from violence against non-violent peaceful protesters. and any government has to support political change that needs aspirations of the people. i am. saleh has launched an investigation -- i am aware president saleh has called for an investigation of the march 18 violence. >> why is the u.s. trusting someone who has committed these apparent acts of humanitarian violence against his own people question of does it come down to the assistance which the u.s. is looking into yemen?

>> our assistance for yemen is based on, in many ways, trying to address the inequities that exist and trying to build a prosperous economy and to address many of the issues the people are protesting for. but beyond that, there is not some kind of quid pro quo. >> two questions. are any u.s. officials are in touch with some of the cabinet members who resigned? and what will that mean for the u.s. if the president goes? >> on the first issue it -- i did not know if there have been communications since they resigned. the second question was? >> another way of asking her question. what does that mean for the u.s. if the president goes? argue that worried about aqap? >> our concerns are well known about aqap, and we continue to cooperate with the yemeni

government. this is about -- the yemeni people having their rights and needs and desires addressed by their government. it is not about the u.s. -- >> just a follow-up. you guys were calling for mubarak to go -- a 30-year ally -- when he started shooting his own people and yet the silence on yemen has been deafening. >> i do not think we have been silent. >> once again, taking the presumptions of the question and not challenging it. when was that the u.s. called formal board to step down? >> i don't remember. >> because you didn't. that is why you did not remember. >> calling for united states citizens to stay inside. obviously very concerned about the situation. >> we have issued a message for american citizens -- we are obviously concerned. we are under voluntary -- we do

take the welfare of american citizens very seriously. >> the u.s. embassy -- under any kind of extraordinary rules of engagement in yemen? then i missed this -- these guys are having a chat do >> i missed this. these guys are having a chat. >> an extraordinary about the embassy and son not -- sun o -- sana'a question is the embassy conducting affairs regularly in the sana'a. >> it is open for business but open to voluntary departure. >> are you in touch with it yemeni ambassador to washington? >> i have to check.

>> can i go to japan? >> i would be happy to go to japan, frankly. >> the potassium iodide tablets that the government is providing, i guess, how are they being provided? do you had stockpiled in japan? can you give details on that? >> excellent question. i did not know how it is being provided. i did not know if we have stockpiles in japan. i can just say that this is in keeping with the nuclear regulatory commission's guidelines on how they would apply -- just like the 50 kilometer zone we talked about last week and how it would apply again to a similar situation in the united states. so, we are making available potassium iodide. i will find out where it may be coming from. >> for u.s. citizens? >> to united states government

personnel and dependents residing in nagoya a, tokyo, yokohama, and several prefectures -- fukushima, iwate, miyaga -- i could go on and on. we advised them we are doing this. >> probably just a couple minutes left in the state department briefing. we will leave this to go live with president obama holding a joint press briefing that the president of chile. >> to washington last year for our nuclear security summit. mr. president, i want to commend you on your decisive leadership in these first few months of office and first year of office. at a time that has been obviously very difficult for the people of chile. i want to thank you for the fervor and energy you brought to the partnership between our two countries, which we strengthened today. we are moving ahead with efforts to expand trade and investments, as the president

mentioned. in our existing trade agreement -- trade between the united states and chile has more than doubled, creating jobs and opportunities in both countries. but i believe and president panetta believes there is always more we can do to expand economic cooperation. today we be committed ourselves to fully implementing the free trade agreement, that includes protection of intellectual properties so our businesses can innovate and stay competitive. we agreed to build on the process -- progress toward a trans-pacific partnerships so we can see the full potential of trade in asia pacific, especially for our small and medium-size businesses. it is my hope that, along with other partners, we can't reach agreement on the framework by the end of this year. if an agreement that could serve as a model for the 21st century. we are expanding clean energy partnerships key to creating green jobs and addressing climate change. which is at the set -- evident in that glaciers melting in this

region. as a member of energy and when the partnership for america's that i proposed, chile is already sharing expertise with the region. i want to commend president panetta for agreeing to take another step, hosting a new center to address glacier melting in the indies. in addition, a new u.s.-to late energy business council will encourage collaboration between our countries and areas like energy efficiency and renewable technologies. if our governments have agreed to share our experience in dealing with natural disasters, an area, of course, in which gillette has enormous expertise and is critical to recovery and economic reconstruction. the president and i discussed our shared commitment to expanding educational exchanges among our students who can learn from each other and bring the countries even closer together. and in my speech today i will announce an ambitious new initiative to increase student exchanges between the united states and latin america,

including july. -- chile. even as we increase cooperation, to commend chile for the leadership role it is increasingly playing across the americas. chilly it is a vital contributor to the mission in haiti, which we agree that yesterday's election is an opportunity to accelerate recovery and reconstruction efforts, and the chilean legislature recently passed a strong but to slash and to combat the scourge of human trafficking. under the president's leadership chile is taking any step today. mr. president, i wanted thank you for helping share chile's secured expertise with central american nations as they fight gangs and arco traffickers. i am pleased our governments will work together to promote development in the americas. the same time, chile is assuming more the leadership role beyond -- on the americas. chile took the bold step of giving up a stockpile of highly

enriched uranium. chle is the first latin-american nation to join a new international effort to strengthen civil society groups that are under threat. as a member of the u.n. human rights council, chle joined with the standing against human rights abuses in iran and libya. in short, mr. president, today with a proven again that when the united states and chile were together, in a spirit of mutual interest and respect, it is not only good for the people of our nations. i believe it is good for the region and good for the world. and i am confident that our partnership will only grow stronger in the years to come, and i am very much grateful for the one of office -- hospitality you are showing me and my delegation. thank you very much. [applause] >> [speaking in spanish]

>> one from chile and international. the first question is from the -- association of international journalists. >> president obama, you emphasize that highlighted the economic management of chile, the leadership in the region. the those are your words. and even a successful transition of democracy. however, in chile, president obama then there are open wounds of the dictatorship of general peter o'shea -- pinochet. political leaders of the world, human rights, and even mp's, the son of the murdered -- they said many of the wounds have to do

with the united states. i ask you, just as it is investigating cases of president eduardo -- and that new speech that you will announce, do you conclude that the u.s. is willing to collaborate with those judicial investigations even as the united states is willing to ask for forgiveness for what it did in those very difficult years in the 1970's in chile? >> on the specific question of how we can work with the chilean government, and requests that are made by chalet to obtain more information about the past is something that we will certainly consider and we would like to cooperate. i think it is very important for all of us to know our history, and obviously the history of

relations between the united states and latin america have at times been extremely rocky, and at times, difficult. i think it is important for us, even as we understand our history and gain clarity about our history, that we are not tracked by our history. and the fact -- trapped by our history. and over the past few decades we have seen extraordinary progress in chile and it has not been impeded by the united states, but in fact, have been fully supported by the united states. thei can't speak to all of policies of the past. i can speak certainly of the policies of of the president of the future. and our firm commitment to democracy, our firm commitment to eradicating poverty, our full commitment to broadbased and socially inclusive developments

, our full support of the robust open markets in chile and the work that the president and his predecessor have done in order to transform the economic situation, they are all things the united states strongly supports. can again, it is important for us to learn from our history, understand our history, but not be trapped by it. because we have challenges now, and even more importantly, we have challenges in the future. >> [speaking in spanish] >> thank you, mr. president. sir, how do you square your position that colonel gaddafi has lost legitimacy and must go

against the limited objective of this campaign which does not demand his removal? if colonel gaddafi is telling his own people, is it permissible for him to let him stay in power? and if i may add -- do you have any regrets undertaking of this mission while you are on the foreign soil and you have the support of the arab people? >> ok. first of all, i think that will embarrass jim by letting everyone know that his mother is chilean -- so this is a little bit of a homecoming. you were born in chile. >> it is a delight to be here. >> i think everyone should know that. i think for all of the chilean press -- you cannot have to take jim's example by asking three questions, pretending it is one. >> one subject. [laughter]

>> first of all, i think it is very easy to square our military actions and our stated policies. our military action is in support of an international mandate from the security council that specifically focuses on the humanitarian threat posed by colonel gaddafi to his people. not only was he carrying out murders of civilians, but he threatened more. he said specifically, we will show no mercy to people who lived in benghazi. if and in the face of that, the international community rallied and said, we have to stop any potential atrocities inside of libya and provided a broad mandate to accomplish that

specific task. as part of that international coalition i authorized the united states military to work with our international partners to fulfil that mandate. now, i also have stated that u.s. policy that gaddafi needs to go. we have a wide range of tools in addition to our military efforts to support that policy. we were very rapid in initiating sanctions and helping to mobilize international sanctions against the gaddafi regime. we froze assets that gaddafi might have used to further and power himself and purchase weapons or hire mercenaries that might be directed against the libyan people. there is a whole range of policies that we are putting in place that have created one of

the most powerful international -- around isolation of mr. gaddafi. and we will continue -- to those. when it comes to military action, we are in support of u.n. security council resolution 1973. that specifically talked about humanitarian efforts and we want to make sure we stick to that mandate. i think it is also important, since we are on the topic, that we consistently emphasized that because we are working with international partners, after the initial thrust that has disabled p gaddafi's air defenses, limited his ability to threaten large population centers like in gaza, that there is going to be a transition taking place where we have a range of coalition partners -- the europeans, members of the arab league -- who will then be

participating in establishing a no-fly zone. so, there is going to be a transition taking place in which we are one of the partners, among many, who are going to make sure that that no-fly zone is in force and that of the units are protection continues to be in place. with respect to initiating this action while i was abroad -- keep in mind, we were working on it very short time frames. and we had done all of the work. it was just a matter of seeing how gaddafi would react to the warning that i issued on friday. despite words to the contrary, was continuing to ask -- act aggressively against civilians. after consultations with our allies, we decided to move forward. it was a matter of the directing secretary of defense gates and admiral mullen that a plan that

had been developed in great detail extensively prior to my departure, was put into place. jim, i have forgotten it there were any other elements of that question. >> arab support, sir. >> well, the arab league, specifically called for the no- fly zone before we went to the united nations and that was, i think, an important element in this overall campaign. >> will they be part of the -- >> absolutely. we are in consultation as we speak. but there are different phases of the campaign. the initial campaign, we took a larger role because we have unique capabilities. our ability to take out, for example, gaddafi's air defense systems are much more significant than some of our other partners. what it does is it creates the space, creates an environment in which a no-fly zone can be effective. it was also important to make sure we got in there quickly so

that whenever advances were being made in benghazi could be halted and we could send a clear message to gaddafi that he needs to start pulling his troops back. keep in mind, we have only been in this process for two days now. we are continuing to do that with the situation on the ground. and our defense department will be briefing you expensively as this proceeds. but the core principle has to be upheld here, which is that when the entire international community almost unanimously says that there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader who lost legitimacy decides to turn his military on his own people, that we can't simply stand by with and keywords, that we have to take some sort of action.

also important to know that the way the u.s. took leadership and manage the process ensures international legitimacy and ensures that our partners, members of the international coalition, are bearing the burden of following through on the mission as well. because as you know, in the past, there have been times when the united states acted unilaterally or did not have full international support. as a consequence, typically it was the united states military will end up bearing the entire burden. the last point i will make -- i could not be prouder of the manner in which the u.s. military has performed over the last several days. the men and women in uniform, when they are given a mission, execute and upstanding job. obviously, our military is

obviously very stretched and carries large burdens of a rumble world. and whenever possible, for us to be able to get international cooperation pad -- not just in terms of words, but in terms of planes and pilots and resources, that is something we should actively seek and embrace because it relieves the burden on our military pick and it relieves the burden on the u.s. taxpayers to fulfill an international mission and not simply a u.s. mission. >> thank you, sir. >> i will ask you in english -- to the response the president gave regarding the wounds of that still linger in this country and the needs what some of people want, but an apology from the united states, and certainly some assistance in any investigations better still ongoing year. thank you.

>> [speaking in spanish] >> 40 years ago -- we had an long and profound conversation with president obama. we didn't have much time to cover all the issues of the future -- so we did not go so back into the past. i can tell you that chile, our government, and as president, firmly believes in the self- determination of peoples and firmly believes in the rule of law and respect for human rights. for that reason, when we had evidence that in the case of the president there could have been a homicide, our government submitted a complaint, party to it, and it is collaborating to collaborate with those -- to

find who is responsible for the death of the president. once the judiciary advocates the responsibilities, they would have to assume the penalty and punishment. in the case of president allend e, we did not have the same basis but if we had them we would act exactly in the same way, and the same presumptions. and i would like to say finally that today, the subject of democracy, of human rights, has no borders. it does not recognize any border. and that is the purpose of this 21st century civilization, and that is why chile supports the initiative of the united nations with the security council, nato, and the arab league to do all that is possible to -- the carnage, killing -- to end the carnage, killing of the

civilians of libya. it is the responsibility of the international community. as a said awhile ago, a human- rights does not and should not respect borders. the responsibility is for all of us in each and every place in the world, whatever the circumstances -- in my view, a person who has bombarded his own people does not deserve to keep on being the ruler of those people. >> a [speaking in spanish] >> from spain. [laughter] >> are you a lawyer or a journalist? >> we tried to be precise. on libya, when you say you will be transferring command.

when are you thinking of transferring command, and would nato be the preferred partner to take over that command? and the second part is, you have said that you want an alliance among equals, with the people of the americas. what the liberals are you going to go for after this trip to achieve it -- todeliverables. . panera -- [speaking in spanish] >> well, with respect to libya, obviously the situation is of holding on the ground. devolving on the ground. how quickly the transfer takes place will be determined by the recommendations of our commanding officers, that the mission has been completed -- that the first phase of the mission has been completed. our initial focus is taking out

libyan air defenses so that a no-fly zone can operate effectively and aircraft and pilots of the coalition are not threaten the -- threaten that while maintaining the no-fly zone. the second aspect is making sure that the humanitarian aspects of the mission can be met. let me emphasize that we anticipate this transition to take place in a matter of days, and not a matter of weeks. and so, i would expect that over the next several days, we will have more information, and the pentagon will be fully briefing the american people as well as the press, on that issue. nato will be involved in a coordinating function because of the extraordinary capacity of that alliance.

but i will leave it took admiral mullen and those directly involved in operation to describe exactly how the transfer might take place. with respect to this new partnership -- i do not want to give you all my best lines from my speech, otherwise no one will come. but the thing that i am most excited about is the fact that in a country like chile, it is not the matter of what we can give to chile but what should they can offer us -- chile can offer us. chile has done interesting work around clean energy so we set up a clean energy partnership. we think we are doing work on alternative energy sources.

but there may be an issue to taking place here in chile that might be for the united states. we have a long history of public education, and our universities, i think, are second to none. but we want to make sure that in this increasingly integrated world, american students are not just looking in words, but looking out words. the idea of us setting up a broad based exchange program with the americas makes an enormous difference. security cooperation -- the plague of narco traffickers in the region is something we are all too familiar with. obviously we have the example of colombia which has made great strides to bring security to countries that have been ravaged by drug lords.

what lessons can we take and then apply them to smaller countries in central america, for example, going through some of these same struggles? for chile, the united states, colombia, other countries, to work in concert to train and effective security operations in central america to deal with narco traffickers is a kind of collaboration that would not be as effective if the united states operating on its own. so, i think across the spectrum of issues we care about deeply, and that chile care about deeply, what will characterize this new partnership is the fact that it is a two-way street. you know, this is not just a situation where a highly developed country is helping a

poor and impoverished country. this is a situation where an up- and-coming regional power that has a strong voice in international affairs is now collaborating with us to hopefully help for greater peace and prosperity in this region of the world. >> [speaking in spanish] >> as far as integration of the americas, which are lagging behind. the best way to illustrate this is to compare what has happened in america to what happened in europe. last century, the europeans had two world wars. a total of more than 70 million casualties. but at some point, they had the wisdom, the coverage, to abandon the rationale of margin

-- margineux line and embrace the maastrict treaty -- statesmanlike adenauer, truman. they began to build what today we know as of the european union. and in american, we are much beyond that. in america, 20 years ago, president bush that a father raised the idea of a free-trade area from alaska to ireland, crating of cousins and for the region, but it never came true, never realized. the time is right now because latin america has been too long the continent of hope or the future, but it cannot be a -- forever, so we are of age now and we need to fulfil our mission.

to recover the lost time and tap all of its potential. we have lots of things in common with the u.s. -- the vast, generous territory, homogeneous people, hard-working people. we did not have racial problems that affect some african countries where the war is waged in europe, nor the religious conflict of europe itself. therefore, latin america is called to compromise -- or rather, commitment. therefore, we are looking forward to president obama's words. we are all left handed, many coincidences, we studied in i think the first lady at the u.s. is very good looking, and president obama has said the same thing about the first lady

of chile. there are plenty of coincidences, but the most important is the one we will find this afternoon. we hope to have partnerships. one where we have all the responsibilities, and not just an extension. the extension is some has never been enough to face the major prospects, but rather a partnership of collaboration between latin america and the united states sharing values, principles, and a common vision . that should reset to the field of him and democracy in defense of human rights. i think we have to improve the democratic charter. it should also open up the doors to the free-trade of goods and services.

in addition to that, to include those subjects which are the true pillars of this 21st century, quality of education, science, technology, and innovation. there lies the pillars for latin america. we have so much to learn from a country such as the united states were in 200 years has really given true evidence of being an innovate the country, and has made the largest contribution of progress to mankind. that's latin america and the united states have a lot to gain from this alliance. but also have the most important challenges of the 21st century, energy. clean, safe, renewable energy.

and water. if global warming keeps going on, it could be the most important thing of our country. and also the most important basis of our society that cannot be face to the lottery, organized crime. we need to work jointly to the other, and and our view, that will require an ash -- national order that will be placed after the second world war and adopted to the needs and challenges of the 21st century. were the only constant thing we have in change -- is change. the time is right to recover all the lost time, and the time is here so that finally this relationship of encounters --

this encounters of shaking hands to be in the past. but as initiate a new era, collaboration. this will truly solve the major problems out will open up the doors to opportunities. the society of knowledge and information is knocking on our doors. and latin america was late to the industrial revolution. we cannot be late in this tremendous revolution, which is so much deeper, which is that of knowledge and information. it has been very generous with the countries that want to embrace it, but with very cool that those countries that do not have it. no ties should be left behind. -- no child should be left behind. we say that no country should be

left behind here in latin america. >> [inaudible] [unintelligible] >> as this briefing wraps up from the present into a palace in chilly, president obama will make further remarks as he continues his five-day trip to the region. that briefing set for about 20 minutes from now at 3:20. and we have live coverage here on c-span. >> tonight on c-span, marking the eighth anniversary of the department of homeland security with tom ridge in michael chertoff. current secretary janet napolitano. they will discuss the nature of threats facing the country and what they miss most about the job. >> people have asked me do i

miss being secretary, and to a certain extent i say yes. i miss working with the people came to trust and admire because of their hard work. it was a very intense, but exciting you enjoy doing what you were doing. i miss not knowing. not that everything we read every morning was something you want to run home and talk to the family and kids about, but you do miss not know when. >> tom ridge, michael chertoff, nj metropolitan on a talk about the department homeland security talk to knighted in o'clock eastern on c-span. >> beginning on april 1, we will begin the student cam competition. focusing on any event, issue, or topic that better help them understand their role of the

federal peppermint. watch the videos on c-span and the students that created them. -- focusing on at an event, issue, or topic that better help them understand their role of the federal government. >> he spoke via satellite from headquarters in germany. we are pleased to be joined today by capt. hampshire and now

he is back. he is starting as from his headquarters in germany. he assumed command on the ninth of march. he is also commanded u.s. military support for international support mto protect the libyan people. with that, i will turn it over to you. >> thank you. i would like to begin today by expressing my heartfelt appreciation for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guard's from our own nation as well as many others who have performed with such great skill, competence, and bravery since military operations began in the bid -- libya. and a special word of banks to their families whose love and support of every one of us who wears a uniform the strength to carry on. over the past 24 hours,

coalition forces have continued operations to implement the provisions of u.n. security resolution 1973. u.s. and british forces launched tomahawk missiles targeting control facilities and a launch of every attack. coalition air forces from france, spain, italy, and denmark in the united kingdom flow -- commissions to sustain an no-fly zone to protect civilians from ground forces ane reconnaissance.

libyan naval forces have returned to or recurring from force. air attacks have succeeded in stopping regime ground forces from advancing to the and ozzie and we're now seeing ground forces moved southward from the gauzy. we will of course watched the crowd forced movements closely. through a variety of reports, we know that regime and ground forces that were in the vicinity now possess little will or capability to resume offensive operations. i would note the commitment of all of the coalition to conduct operations with precision, a very high concern for civilian casualties, and with positive control of all of our forces. our actions today are focused on

extending the no-fly zone south word and westward from benghazi. i anticipate this will soon extend to other parts. it is about 1,000 kilometers. it is a pretty wide area. in addition to the forces i mentioned previously, we welcome canadian and belgian forces as they conduct operations to date in the area, and i would note the presence of the french aircraft carrier, and the italian aircraft carrier that have significant capability in the region. finally, we are developing the process by which we will transition to leave for military operations to a designated head quarter. his is a very complex tatask under the best of conditions. i would now welcome your

questions. >> bob burns from ap. to what extent is the u.s. military committee communicating in order to coordinate action on the ground. you mentioned certain areas. also, what do you know about the whereabouts of muammar gaddafi and the extent to which he is still controlling the forces? >> i do not know much about the location of the libyan leader, nor have we extended military efforts in that regard. and we have expended considerable effort to degrade militaryan regime's command and control capability. i think we have had some very significant effect in that regard. our mission is to protect civilians from attack by the

regime-ground forces. our mission is not to support any opposition forces. while we have reports from people that are reported to be in opposition, there is no official communication or formal communication with those in this so-called opposition that are opposing the regime's ground forces. >> you talked about the no-fly differentg toward its areas. and i was wondering along those lines, do you fear mission crease? it might this move onto other as well?s talk about the difficulty of

protecting civilians by air when the libyan troops are in and among the population. >> the first up towards countering the regime in any place is to ensure we have freedom of air movement. the first up is necessarily insuring that we are able to extend a no-fly zone and operate our aircraft with a low level of risk. so as we extend the no-fly zone west were, i think it is likely that we will enable the air defense systems. where we attack them -- where we encounter them, we will certainly attack them. how we encounter them is a very

difficult situation for us. the identification and distinction puts us and very close quarters and is a particular challenge for us. we have been very precise in our instructions to the air crews about what they may and may not do. we are very conscious and limiting civilian casualties. where we can and where we can safely without risk to other civilians and causing collateral damage, we have the capability to engage in those kinds of missions. right now the first effort, is

to establish the no-fly zone, and that process is under way. until we do that, our ability to influence activities on the ground remains somewhat limited. >> [inaudible] do you worry about that? mission creep, do you worry about that? >> i do not worry a lot about that. the military mission here is pretty clear. it is very clear frankly. and what is expected of us to do, established a no-fly zone to protect civilians, to get the withdrawal of regime ground forces. so i do not have a sense at all that there is mission creep. what we're looking forward to is

the transition from a u.s.-led effort to the designated headquarters. again, i am not concerned. i think our mission is clear in we're moving forward. as i say, i think we're so far achieving our military objectives consistent with our mission. >> as you go after a regime ground forces, to what degree can it really be said that you're not providing support for the opposition, even if you are not in contact with them? >> we do not provide close air support for the opposition forces. we protect civilians. i would suggest that some may be civilians. if they are attacked, then we would be obliged if we possess

the capability to try to protect them from an attack. we have no mission and no intent to provide close air support through the opposition. you said there was no official communication with the rebels. can you say there are no americans on the ground period? >> it would make sense for the secretary of defense to speak to this. no american troops on the ground. and frankly i've been there are some american citizens who were in libya who chose not to leave,

but no one who is a part of this coalition is on the ground. i do not know how to be more clear than that. i know you said you're not supporting close air support to the opposition, but if they were to resume offensive military operations and get into a clash with libyan forces, what role, if any, would coalition air fa aircraft play in supporting that? am not real comfortable going down the path of hypothetical questions. the mission is to protect civilians. if civilians are attacked, we have an obligation under the security council's resolution and the mission that has been given to me to protect those

civilians. we protect civilians. we do not have a mission to support the opposition. defiant rebel forces to work in the benghazi as rebel forces? if there were men holding guns, which cannot protect them? >> it gets a little bit into some very specific parsing of this question, because who exactly is this opposition? it is clear to me simply brown watching the reports from many of the organizations that are represented in that room that many in opposition truly are civilians, and they are trying to protect their homes, their

families, their businesses, and in doing that, some of them have taken up arms. there are basically civilians trying to protect their civilian lives, businesses, and families. there are also those in opposition that have armored vehicles and that have heavy weapons. meet, but says that those parts of the opposition's are no longer covered under that protect civilian clause. it is not a clear distinction, because we're not talking about our regular military force. it is a very problematic situation. what we try to do and what we are charged with doing is when there are threats to the civilian populace, we are

obliged under the mission and the security council resolution to try to protect them. again, sometimes these are situations that are much better in the headquarters than they do with the aircraft. what we have given as far as instructions to the cruise is to be very judicious and their application of force. -- what we have given as far as instruction to crews is to be very judicious in their application of force. and if it is a situation where it is unclear that it is civilians who may be attacked, then those crews are under cautious, be very unless they are convinced that doing so would be consistent with the mission to protect

civilians. >> general chris florence from cnn. how did the bombing of the muammar gaddafi compound tie into the mission of protecting civilians? >> i caught a little bit of static there, but i think the question was about attacking the compound last evening. is that correct? >> how did the attack on muammar gaddafi's compound tie into the mission of protecting civilians? >> i got you loud and clear that time. this is a large compound.

and there is housing. there is normal things. and there is also a command and control facility that we are certain is the command and control facility. we have multiple means to tell us that. that is the facility that was attacked. again, we do so with tremendous precision. we do so without particular target. it was decided upon because degrading that command and control facility would degrade the regime's ability to control the military forces and the attack of civilians. we think there is a very direct relationship in the attack on that target and a mission that we have. >> jennifer kristin from fox news. jennifer griffen.

we have heard repeatedly that muammar gaddafi is not a target. have you heard concerns that it could end in stalemate, and does that concern you? >> i do see a situation where that could be the case. it is perhaps easier for me to address that the event is for others, because i have a very discreet military mission. so i could see accomplishing the military mission, which has been assigned to me, and the current leader would remain the current leader. is that i deal? i do not think anyone would say that is ideal, but i could envision that as a possible such a widgeon, at least for the current mission that i have. i would reiterate that i have no

mission to attack that person, and we are not doing so. we are not seeking his whereabouts or anything like that. we think we have been very effective integrating his ability to control his regime forces. and we think we're seeing that play out in various parts of the country. >> [inaudible] >> not significant change. the best news that i would pass on is that we are seeing --> >> we will leave the pentagon briefing at this point. we are returning to the prison presidential palace in chile. [applause] >> thank you.

[applause] please, let everyone be seated. thank you. it is a wonderful honor to be in it santiago, chile. i want to thank your president for his outstanding leadership and hospitality that he is extended not only to me, but also to my wife, my daughters, and most importantly, my mother- in-law. [laughter] to the people of santiago, they do so much for your wonderful welcome. on behalf of the people of the united states, let me thank you

for your friendship and strong bonds between our people. and there are several people that i want to acknowledge very briefly. we have the president of the inter-american development bank who is here. [applause] we also have alicia [inaudible] . [applause] throughout our history, this land has been called the end of the world. and i have come here today because in the 21st century this nation is a vital part of our interconnected world.

in an age where peoples are intertwined like never before, chile shows that we need not be divided by race or religion or ethnic conflict. he welcomed immigrants from every corner of the globe, even as you celebrate a proud, indigenous heritage. -- you welcome immigrants from every corner of the globe, even as you celebrate a proud, indigenous heritage. indeed our marvelous surroundings today are just steps of where chile lost the democracy decades ago. it is a testament to the progress and then dying democratic spirit. despite barriers of distance and geography, you have integrated

chile into the global economy, trading with countries all over the world. in this internet age, becoming the most digit lead-connected country in latin america. -- digitally-connected country in latin america. it is the character of this country that inspires. our original guiding stars, our struggle and hope, but there is no such thing as a loan struggle. no such thing as a lone hope. the july and people have shown this time and again, including your recovery from the terrible earthquake here one year ago. credit for success belongs to

the chilean people whose courage, sacrifices, and perseverance build this nation into the leader that it is. and we're very honored to be joined today by four leaders who have died -- guided this nation through two years of process. thank you all for being here. in [applause] i cannot imagine a more fitting place to discuss the new era of partnership that the united states is pursuing. not only with chile, but across the americas. i am grateful we're joined by leaders and members of the diplomatic corps across the region. within my first 100 days in

office, one of my first foreign trip as president i travel to trinidad and tobago to meet with leaders across the hemisphere of the summit of the americas. there i pledged to seek partnership of equality and shared responsibility based on mutual interest and mutual respect on shared values. i know i am not the first president from the united states to pledge a new spirit of partnership with our latin american neighbors. words are easy, and i know that there have been times that perhaps the united states took this region for granted. even now i know are headlines are often dominated by headlines in other parts of the world. but let's never forget, everyday the future is being forged by the people and country of what

america. let america is not the old stereotype if the region of perpetual conflict or trapped in endless cycles of poverty, the world must now recognize the latin america for the dynamic and growing region that it truly is. latin america is at peace. civil wars have ended. insurgencies have been pushed back. old border disputes have been resolved. in colombia, great sacrifices by citizens and security forces have restored a level of security not seen in decades. just as old conflicts have receded, so, too, have the ideological battles that often fuel them. the old debates between state- run economies and unbridled capitalism, between the abuses of right-wing military and left- wing insurgents. between those that believe the united states causes all the

region's problems and those believe the united states belignores all the nation's problems. those are false and do not reflect reality. today latin america is democratic. virtually all the people of latin america have gone from living under dictatorships to living in democracies. across the region we see beiber democracies from mexico to to lay-- we see vital democracies from as mexico to chile. the work of protecting them the market sees is never truly done. but this is the no standing -- outstanding progress that has been made here in the americas. today that america is growing. having a tough but necessary reforms, nations like peru and brazil are seeing impressive

work. as a result, america whether the global economic downturn better than other regions. across the region people have been lifted from extreme poverty. a new middle class is demanding more of themselves and more of their government. latin america is coming together to address a share challenges. chile, colombia, and mexico are sharing their expertise. contributions have been critical

in haiti, as has latin diplomacy in the lead it to the election yesterday in haiti. and increasingly that america is to to get into a global security and prosperity. longtime contributors to the united nations peacekeeping missions. of latin american nations have helped to prevent conflicts from africa to asia. countries likeg-20 mexico have a greater voice in decision making. under mexican leadership, the world make progress at cancun in our efforts to combat crimclimae change. so this is the latin america that i see today. our region on the move, proud of its progress, and ready to assume a greater role in greater

affairs. for all of these reasons, i believe that america is more important to the prosperity and security of the united states than ever before. with no other region does the united states have so many connections and no where do we see that more than in the tens of millions of hispanic americans across united states to enrich our society, grow our economy and strengthen our nation every single day. i believe latin america will only become more important to the united states, especially to our economy. trade between latin america and then ended states has search. we buy more of your products and goods than any other country. we invest more in this region than any other country. for instance, we export more than three times as much to lot america as we do to china. -- more to latin america than we do to china.

in other words, when that america is more prosperous, the united states is more prosperous. even more than interest work, we are showers -- down by shared boundaries. we see reflections of our own work. columnists who broke free from empires, pioneers who open new frontiers, citizens who have struggled to expand our nations promised to all people, men come and women, white, black, and aroun brown. people must remember that all of us, especially the most fortunate among us, must do our part especially for the least among us. for citizens know that insuring the democracy is delivered to the people must be the work the ba of all.

this is our common history. this is our common heritage. we are all americans. across the americas, parents want their children to be able not to run and play and know they will come home safely. young people all desperately wanted education. all others want the dignity that comes from work. -- fathers want the dignity that comes from work. people everywhere want to be treated with respect to which every human being is entitled. these are the hopes. simple yet profound that beat in the hearts of many americans. but if we are honest, we will also admit that these dreams are still beyond the reach of many. the progress in the americas does not come fast enough. not for the millions to endure

the justice -- the injustice of extreme poverty. not for the children and shantytowns that just want the same opportunities as everyone else. not for the communities that are caught in the grips of cartels and gangs. despite this region's democratic progress, inequality and doors. political and economic power that is too often concentrated in the hands of you instead of serving the many. and the corruption that too often stifles growth and development, innovation, and the entrepreneur worship. and in leaders who claim to bankrupt ideology is to seek to some of their opponents because the opponents have the audacity to demand the universal rights. these are realities we must face.

of course we are not the first generation to face these challenges. 50 years ago this month, president john f. kennedy proposed an ambitious alliance for progress. it was, even by today's standards, a massive investment. billions of u.s. dollars to meet the basic needs of people across the region. such a program was right. such was appropriate for that era. the reality of our time and the new capabilities in confidence of black america demand something different. challenge innnedy's doors to build a hemisphere were all people can hope for a sustainable, suitable standard of living, and alton about their lives with dignity and freedom. half a century later, we must give meaning to this work in our own way.

in any way. -- in a new way. i believe there are no senior partners in junior partners. there're only equal partners. of course equal partnership demands a sense of shared responsibility. we have obligations to each other. today the united states is working with the nations of this hemisphere to meet our responsibilities in several key areas. first, we are partnering to address the concerns that people across the americas say they worry about the most some of the security of their families and communities. criminal gangs are not only a threat to the security of our citizens, they are a threat to development, because they scare away investment that economies need to prosper. and they are a direct threat to democracy because the fuel -- a

fuel the corruption from within. from our partners from colombia and central america and the caribbean, we are confronting this challenge together. we have increased our support. we are improving coordination in sharing more information so that those that traffic in drugs and in human beings have fewer places to hide. we're putting unprecedented pressure on cartel finance, including in the united states. but we will never break the grip of the cartels and gangs unless we also address the social and economic forces that you'll criminology -- criminality. -- that fuel criminality.

as the nations of central america develop, a new regional security strategy, the united states stands ready to do our part through the partnership that puts the focus where it should be, on the security of its citizens. we will make sure our support is not as well-intentioned but well coordinated and well spent. i have said before, and i will repeat, as president i have made it clear that the united states shares and accept our share of responsibility for drug violence. after all, the demand for drugs, including in the united states, rises this crisis. that is why we have developed a new drug control strategy. i would point out that even

during difficult fiscal times in the united states, we have proposed increasing commitments by $10 billion this year alone. we're also doing more to stem the self on flow of guns into the region. we are screening all southbound real cargo. we are ceasing many more guns found from mexico and more than runners behind bars. every gun or a gun runner that we take off the street is one less threat to the families and communities of the americas. as we work to insure the security of our citizens, we are partnering in the secondary, promoting prosperity and security. i'd have been so impressed with the president's pledge to lift everyone out of extreme poverty by 2020. that is an ambitious goal and appropriate goal. with this trip i working to

expand some of the trade and investment that might help achieve the goal. across the region we're moving ahead with open skies agreement to bring our businesses and people closer together. we are moving forward with our transpacific partnership to create new trade opportunities in the fast-growing markets of asia pacific. as i have directed it, might administration has intensified efforts to move forward on trade agreements with panama and colombia, consistent with values and interests. we are also encouraging the next generation of businesses and on entrepreneurs. tore supporting reforms taxes, which are critical for economic growth and investment. we are creating new pathways to prosperity.

training for those that must share in economic growth, including women and members of african and indigenous communities. and we are coming together as a hemisphere to create clean energy jobs and pursue more secure in sustainable energy futures. if anybody doubts the urgency of climate change, they should look no further than the americas. from the stronger storms in the caribbean, to the glacier melts, to the loss of forest and farmland across the region. under the energy and climate partnership of the americas that i have proposed, countries have stepped forward, each providing leadership and expertise. brazil has expertise in biofuel. chile and geothermal. el salvador is connecting grades in central america to make electricity more reliable.

these are exactly the kinds of partnerships that we need. neighbors joining with neighbors to unleash the progress but none of us can achieve alone. it is the same philosophy behind additional initiatives i am announcing today, which will help our country's education innovate for the future. first, we are launching a new issue of the -- a new initiative to help students, scientists, academics and all entrepreneurs collaborate to develop new ideas and products that will keep the americas competitive in a global economy. i am proud to announce that the united states will work with partners in this region, including the private sector, to increase the number of u.s. students studying in latin america to 100,000 in the number of latin american students studying in the united states to 100,000. staying competitive also demands

that we address immigration, and issue that evokes great passions in the united states, as well as in the americas. as president i have made it clear that immigration strengthens yothe united states we are a nation of immigrants. laws,also a nation of which is why i will not waver in my determination to fix the broken system. i committed to comprehensive reform that enforces our laws, strengthens the borders, and addresses the millions of undocumented workers that are living in the shadows of the united states. i believe this challenge will be with us for a very long time, so long as people believe the only way to provide for their families is to leave their families and head north. that is why the united states

has to continue with partner ships to give people a path out of poverty. as part of our new approach to development, we're working with partners like what ala, el salvador -- guatemala, and also all the door. -- and also el salvador. this leads me to the final area where we must continue to partner, and that a strengthening democracy and human rights. more than six years ago, our nation's came together in an organization of american states that declared that representatives democracy is an indispensable condition for the stability, peace, and development of the nation. a decade ago we reaffirmed this principle with an insert- american democratic charter that

stated "the people of the americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it." across the americas generations, including generations of chileans, have struggled and meaning too get meaningive these words. faith leaders who preached social justice, and the mothers of the disappeared who demanded the truth, political prisoners who rose to become presidents, and even now, those who march in quiet dignity. the people of america's have

shown there is no substitute for democracy. as governments we have an obligation to defend what has been won. so as we mark the 10th anniversary of the inter- american democratic charter this the, let's reaffirm principles we know to be true. let's recommit to defending democracy and human rights and our own countries by strengthening the institutions that democracy needs to flourish. free and fair elections in which people choose their own leaders. by britain legislatures that provide oversight -- vibrant legislatures that provide oversight. a free press that promotes open debate. professional military under civilian control. strong civil societies that hold

the government accountable. and governments that are transparent and responsive to their citizens. this is what makes a democracy. just as we defend democracy and human rights within our borders, let's recommit to the refunding them -- defending them across the hemisphere. i understand that every nation will follow its own path. no nation should impose its will on another. surely we can agree that democracy is about more than just majority rule, that simply holding power does not give a leader the right to suppress the rights of others, and that leaders must maintain powers through consensus and not coercion. in we have to speak up. wavered in our support for the rights of people to determine their own future.

that includes cuba. since taking office, have announced the most significant changes to cuba and policy indicates. i have made it possible for americans to visit cuba and their families. we will continue to seek ways to increase the independence of the cuban people who i believe are entitled to the same freedom and liberty as everyone else in this hemisphere. i will make this effort to break out of this history that has now existed for long but i have been alive, but cuban authorities may take a rigid mistake actions to protect the basic rights of their people.

because the people of cuba deserve it. no less than the people of the united states or chile or brazil or any other country deserve it. the lessons of latin america, i believe, can be a guide. a guide for people around the world who are beginning their own journeys toward democracy. there is no one model for democratic transitions. as this region knows, successful transitions to have certain ingredients. the moral forces of non- violence. the protection of basic rights, such as peaceful expression and assembly. accountability for past wrongs, and matching political reform

with economic reform, because democracy must meet the basic needs and aspirations of people. with decades of experience, there's so much what america can now share. how to build political parties and organize free elections. how to ensure peaceful transfers of power. how to navigate the path of reform and reconciliation. and when the inevitable setbacks occurs, you can remind people to never lose sight of the guiding stars of which paulo spoke of. struggle, but also hope. security for our citizens, trade and development that creates jobs, prosperity and a clean energy future, standing up for democracy and human rights -- these are the partnerships we can force together. here in the americas but also

around the world. if anyone doubts whether this region has the capacity to meet these challenges, they need only remember what happened here in only a few months ago. their resolve inspired the world. i do not need to tell you the story. you know it well. but it is worth remembering how this entire nation came together across government, a civilian, military, national, and local. across the private sector and large companies donating supplies. and across every segment of july and society, people came together to help those men and their families. it was a miraculous rescue.

it was a tribute to chilean leadership. finally, when he emerged, he spoke for an entire nation when he said i am proud to be to la chilean. yet something else happened in those months, the people and governments of latin america came together to stand with a neighbor in need. with a latin american country the lead, the world was proud to play a supporting role, sending workers from the united states and canada. rescue equipment from europe. communications gear from asia. and as the miners were lifted to safety, for those in joyous reunions, it was a truly global move to watch them celebrated by more than 1 billion people.

if ever we needed a reminder of the humidity and hopes that we share, that moment was such. when a country like chile put his mind to it, there is nothing you can do. when countries across that america come together and focus on a common goal, when united states and others do our part, there is nothing we cannot accomplish together. and that is our vision of the americas. this is the progress we can achieve together. this is the spirit of partnership and equality to which the united states is committed. i am confident that working together, there is nothing we cannot achieve. thank you very much. thank you. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

♪ ♪

>> president obama, speaking on u.s.-latin american relations. the first lady and their daughters joined the president today. tonight it will be a state dinner. tomorrow the president will be in both salvador, the last stop on their trip. he and the first lady build do some sightseeing and attend a state dinner. the president returns to the white house on wednesday. >> tonight on c-span, marking the eighth anniversary of the department of homeland security with former secretaries tom ridge and michael chertoff. they discuss the nature of threats facing the country, the structure of the agency, and what they miss most about the job. >> people ask me if i miss being

secretary, and to a certain extent i say yes, i miss working with the people that i trusted and who did all that hard work. it is not work when you enjoyed doing what you are doing. and that not knowing. not that everything that we read every morning was something that she would want to talk to your family about, but you miss not knowing. >> discussing the department of homeland security tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now, a briefing on the u.s. response to the nuclear events in japan. remarks come from the chair of the nuclear regulatory commission. this is from this morning.

>> good morning, everyone. we meet today to discuss the tragic events in japan and began to discuss possible actions that we may take to verify the safety of the nuclear materials here in the united states. people across the country and around the world have been touched by the magnitude and scare -- scale of this disaster. the repercussions in this country, as well as many other countries, are felt. of the like to offer my sincere condolences to everyone affected by the earthquake and -- i would like to offer my sincere condolences and apologies to everyone affected by the

earthquake and tsunami in japan. we know that the people of japan are resilience and strong and have every confidence that they will move forward with a result. -- resolve. we stand together with the people of japan in this difficult and challenging time. the nrc is a relatively small agency with 4000 staff. we play a critical role when it comes to the use of that nuclear materials in the environment. we are proud to have world-class scientists, engineers, and professionals representing nearly every discipline. friday, march 11, the headquarters operations center has been operating 24 hours to monitor and analyze the nuclear power plant in japan.

at the request of the japanese government and through the united states agency for international development, we sent a team of technical experts to provide on the ground support. we have been in continual contact with them since they deployed. within the united states, the nrc has been working closely with other agencies to respond to the situation. here in the united states we have an obligation to the american people to undertake a systematic review and that in light of the natural -- systematic review in light of the disaster. examining all information is an essential part of understanding the event and the impact on japan as well as impacts for the united states. the focus will always be on keeping plants and radioactive materials in this country safe and secure. as the immediate crisis comes to

an end, we will look at any information we can to gain experience from the event and see if changes need to be made to protect further public health and safety. together with my colleagues we will review the current steps being taken. in the meantime, we will continue to oversee and monitor plants in the u.s. to make sure that reactors remain safe. i would like to thank all of our staff for maintaining focus on central safety and security measures. i would like to acknowledge their tireless efforts and contributions to the u.s. response. in spite of the evolving situation, long hours, and intensity of efforts over the last week, staff has approached their efforts with professionalism. we are all incredibly proud of their efforts. the american people can also be proud of the commitment and dedication in the workforce

exemplified by our staff every day. i would like to reiterate, certainly, our sympathy with the crisis and the difficult situation for our friends and colleagues and we look forward to providing assistance as they continue to deal with a very challenging situation. not only with the nuclear facilities, but with many other impacts of this natural disaster in japan. i would like to offer the commissioner a chance to make comments. >> i wanted to add my voice to that of others regarding the great sympathy that we feel over the loss and devastation because of the earthquake and tsunami in japan. the dramatic images that have riveted so many of us over the course of the last week have an added dimension for us. for us, these images are not an

abstraction. many of us have traveled to japan and to our facilities of our -- to word -- tour3 the of ourfacilities colleagues. the help offered has been clearly evident. we are heartsick over this tragedy. some might characterize that our faith in technology is shaken, but nuclear safety cannot be a matter of faith. it must be a matter of fact. today we continue the systematic evaluation of facts and what we know about what happened and what we do not know, we build peace it together. the approach to nuclear power regulation in this country is comprehensive and correct. applying any lessons we can from this event. taking the systematic approach

the to have called for, mr. chairman, i am certain the commission will achieve its objective. thank you. >> commissioner? >> i joined the chairman and commissioners in expressing my condolences to the people of japan. i also second to the chairman's comments on amending the staff towards this accident. >> this is in many ways a very personal tragedy for me. i have many friends and colleagues in japan. i have been in touch with them for the last week and a half. those in the north are dealing with food and gasoline shortages. everyone is in during the continued aftershocks ended ring the-- andendu continued aftershocks.

for several days after the earthquake they are still waiting for water to be restored. in the aftermath of they make new friends as people bond and comfort each other to make the best of a difficult situation. fortunately, she has a neighbor with a well and she has been able to get water. i am sure that there are countless examples of people reaching out to each other, bonding as a community in showing resilience in moving forward. the scale of the tragedy has been terrible. the loss of life has been terrible. japan will recover. we in the u.s. are close friends with the japanese people and we are very proud of how our country has responded to this crisis and how our nuclear regulatory staff has responded as well. boasting expertise and selflessness over the last 10 days, i applaud your efforts.

today the commission received an update on the situation in japan. our response and efforts to understand what has happened, there will be important lessons learned from these events. it is essential that they are identified correctly. i expect that this meeting will be the first of many that engages the outstanding issues and addresses those issues to ensure the safety of u.s. nuclear power plants. i look forward to working with my partners in the commission to do so. thank you. >> thank you. this is a very important meeting for the commission and the country. i would like to join my colleagues in extending my personal sympathies to the people of japan. the consequences and the loss of life of the earthquake and tsunami are simply devastating. thoughts and prayers go out to them. i would like to thank the chairman and nrc staff for their

efforts in supporting the nrc monitoring assistance regarding these events. i appreciate the hard work, 24/7, of the center over the last week. i am thankful for the competence and professionalism dedicated by the nrc staff. i am grateful to the nrc members dispatched to japan. while the slaying as a commissioner, i am proud of the commitment and professionalism of our team. the events that have on felt it -- unfolded over the last seven days are stark. on the one hand, i believe our existing licensing and oversight activities and assure us that our nuclear power plants are safe. on the one hand, i know that we

must and certainly will conduct a thoughtful and rational examination of the nrc's framework, with information based on lessons learned. as we head down this path together, i know that this commission will stay mindful of the challenges they face. the statement from the chairman over the last week, echoed by commissioners, i fully support that call for a systematic and methodical review. we must also do this in a way that clearly communicates to the american people what this review means, what it implies for the nuclear power plants. thank you. >> thank you, everyone. with that, we will turn it over to build. >> good morning. i would like to join in your expression of condolences to

the people of japan. by and many of my colleagues on the nrc staff have had many years of close and personal interaction with our regulatory counterparts and we would like to extend our condolences to them. we are mindful of our primary responsibility, to ensure the public health and safety of the american people. we have been closely monitoring the activities in japan, reviewing all available information to allow us to conclude that the u.s. plants continue to operate safely. there has been no reduction in the licensing or oversight function of the nrc as it relates to any of the u.s. licensees. contributors to the conclusion that the current fleet of reactors and materials licensee's continue to protect the public health and safety are based on a number of principles,

including the defense endowment. the fact that every reactor in this country is designed for natural offense based on the specific sites that the reactor is located on. there are multiple fission product barriers and a wide range of the verse and redundant safety features in order to provide that public health and safety assurance. we have a long history of conservative decision making. we have been intelligently using risc insight to help to inform our regulatory process. and we have never stopped to make improvements to the plant design as we have learned from operating experience over the more than 35 years of civilian nuclear power in this country. some lessons have been derived from other previous significant events, like three mile island.

we had severe accident management guidelines, revisions to the emergency operating procedures, procedures and processes for dealing with large fires and explosions regardless of the cost. we have a blackout rule. we have a hydrogen rule for our reactors. many others that i will go into in more detail later. all of these relate in one way or another to the tragic events in japan. in addition to all that we have done in the nrc over the last week and a half, over the many years, as i alluded to on the rulemaking site activities, the industry is also performing many verification activities at this time to verify that all of these processes and procedures, rules that have been implemented are still valid. from a high level of the response center to the

operations center here in rock hill, as well as the nrc team in japan, they focused on three major areas. the first is supporting the japanese government and our regulatory counterparts. the second is to gather information and assess that information for implication on u.s. facilities. the third is to support be elected ambassador of japan with our expertise, which we are perfectly positioned to do. we are mobilized to respond. notwithstanding, some very high levels of support, we have continued to maintain focus on domestic was once abilities. -- domestic responsibilities. the release of radioactive

materials in japan, there is no expectation of an effect on the health or safety of the u.s. population. the next slide shows the agenda of the meeting. given time constraints, it will be a relatively high overview of activities. the room has a healthy number of staff to explain questions and answers you might have later. moving to a brief overview of the events, on friday, march 11 an earthquake hit japan, resulting in the shutdown of more than 10 reactors. to our understanding, the reactors responded to the earthquake according to design. there are no known problems to our knowledge with the response to that event. the ensuing tsunami, however,

cause the loss of emergency power to six units at the fukashima site. those units have received the majority of our attention at that time. the first three units were in operation at the time. 4, 5, and six were in previously scheduled outages. it appeared that there was no injection capability into the reactor vessels on units one, too, and three. saturday, march 12, a hydrogen explosion occurred in unit 1. the following 14th, there was a hydrogen explosion in unit 3. on the 15th of march there were explosions in unit 2. and in unit 4. hydrogen originating from the

spent fuel pool. at this time it is our assessment that it is likely that the first three units have experienced some degree of cord damage. today all units appear to be in a stable condition with seawater injection being used to keep the reactor school. containment and integrity for all three units is believed to be currently maintained. gray smoke has omitted from unit 3, causing the evacuation of the site as it reported this morning. the source of that smoke is unknown, although there is no indication of an increase in activity. on the sign of promising news, we have been able to bring of site power onto the site from a nearby transmission line.

it is now essentially at the border of units one and two. there are early indications that there may be electrical problems within the units. so, i understand that they are now in the process of laying temporary tables to the pumps and valves inside of units one and two. over the next day or two that will be doing the same thing for units three and four. there are two diesel generators running on supply power units 5 and 6. moving to the nrc response, shortly after 4:00 in the morning of friday, march 11, the operations center made the first call informing management of the earthquake and potential impact on u.s. plants. we went into the monitoring mode at the operations center.

the first concern for the nrc was the possible impact of the tsunami of u.s. plants on the west coast. on that same day, friday, march 11, we dispatched two experts to japan to help that the embassy and began interactions with our japanese regulatory counterparts. by monday we have dispatched a total of 11 staff to japan. the areas of focus for this team of 11 is to support the japanese government and respond to support requests from our regulatory counterpart. support from the u.s. ambassador came from his understanding of the nuclear impact of this event. third, helping the information flow from japan to the u.s. nrc so that we could assess implications in as timely a manner as possible.

we have had an extensive range of stakeholders that we have been in constant interaction with. our state regulatory counterparts, a wide range of other federal agencies have and forced the international regulatory bodies around the world. our ongoing response is that the operations center remains in a 24-7 posture. this has involved the efforts of over 250 nrc staff on a rotating basis. in addition to those people staffing the operations center there is hardly a person in the agency that is not in one way or another contributing to the response. be it through information technology needs for the people of japan, or reaching out from texas, where they are backing up operations officers in the

center to help maintain information flow of the current reactors in the country. the entire agency is pulling together by response to those events so that we can provide the assistance in japan and not miss any of our normal activities. in addition we aware -- we remain aware of the efforts to provide assistance to our counterparts in japan. the u.s. government has an extensive network of radiation monitors across the country. epa systems have not identified any radiation levels of concern in this country. in fact, natural background, from things like rocks, son, buildings, they are 100,000 times more than any level that has been detected today.

we feel confident in our conclusion that there is no reason for concern in the united states regarding radioactive releases from japan. i would like to focus for a few more minutes on the factors that go into assuring us but domestic reactor safety. since the beginning of the regulatory program in the united states we have used the philosophy of defense and death, recognizing the nuclear industry requires the highest standards of design, construction, oversight, and operations. even with that, we build not rely on any one level of protection for the entire purposes of protecting public health and safety. so, the designs for every single reactor in this country are taken into account.

the specific sites that the reactor is located on, as well as detailed evaluations for things such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and many others. in addition there are multiple physical barriers to release in addition to that there are the verse and redundant safety systems required to be maintained and they are frequently tested by regulations that make sure that the plant is in a high condition of readiness to respond to any scenario. as mentioned earlier, we have taken advantage of the lessons learned from previous operating experiences. the most significant in this country being the three mile island accident of the late 1970's. as a result we have significantly revised the

emergency planning, emergency operating procedures. many of you have pointed to these issues as they relate to help control room operators operate the plant. new requirements for control helped to prevent explosions within containment. we also created requirements for enhanced indication on pumps and valves. we have a post-accident sampling system that allows for the monitoring of radioactive materials released and a possible fuel degradation. of course, one of the most significant changes after three mile island was the creation of the residents specter program for the full-time inspectors to be on site and have an unfettered access to all licensed activities 24 hours per day, seven days per week. also, as a result of operating

experience and ongoing research programs, we have developed requirements for a severe accident management guidelines. these are programs that perform the blood of scenario. what if all of these important procedures and practices, instrumentation, but if it all failed. what procedures, policies, and equipment should be in place to deal with the extremely unlikely scenario of a extreme accident -- of an extreme accident. as a result of the events of september 11, 2001, we did a similar evaluation and identified important pieces of equipment that, regardless of the cause of a significant fire or explosion at a plant, we

would have presaged policies and equipment to help deal. all of these things are directly applicable to the significant events taking pate -- taking place in japan. over the last 15 to 20 years there have been a number of new rules that relate directly to japan. there is a station blackout rule that requires every plant in the country to analyze what the response would be if they were to lose all alternating current so that they could respond using batteries. and then have procedures, arrangements in place in order to restore alternating current to the site. as mentioned earlier, there is a hydrogen will that requires modifications.

there are equipment qualification walls that indicate equipment under the kinds of environmental degradation conditions the two would see. going directly to the type of containment designed for plants in japan. we have had a book approach in english showing scrubbing. as well as enhanced reliability of the automatic the pressurization system. i also mentioned earlier that we have emergency plan goodness and preparing qualities to provide

ongoing training and testing what state and local governments have stood it on a yearly basis. over the near term, the nrc activities are to concur with event evaluations we are doing through the center inspection staff, including resident inspectors >> i know that i am beyond this design basics

expert. did we issue and information notice do make them notice -- noted of the offense and what kinds of activities they should be engaged in regulatory action that needs to be taken immediately in order to address the information that we have to date. the temporary inspection that i referred to, bear in mind the mitigation on the results from see it -- severe accidents includes a loss of significant operational system. >> problems associated with flooding and the impact of floods on system inside and

outside of the plant. identifying. each site has its own unique size of a profile or we will we use to about whether those actions need to be taken in the immediate term in the near term effort we will very soon began, 90 days to evaluate the currently available information from the japanese event. looking at it to operate our activities -- facilities against the possibility of natural disaster.

possible station blackouts, severe accidents, aggression. look at radiological consequence. also, look at the either for computer animation -- implications and, as i mentioned earlier, we would evaluate whether or not some regulatory action, perhaps in the framework of an order, would be required report to the commission, standing ready to brief the commission as you desire. >> in order to accomplish this

report, we will have limited stakeholder involvement. and then it will be done independent of industry efforts that might be on going. the idea is to get a quick snapshot of the regulatory response and the condition of the u.s. fleet. we have limited for racism guido all long but we at least wanted to do this quick look report. on the longer-term, we will be developing lessons learned that are somewhat dependent on when we begin to get some better understandings of the events as

a result of the earthquake and tsunami in japan. to some degree, it is difficult to precisely state when the start date for this longer-term review will begin. the review may include the involvement of other federal agencies, but it will certainly interact with those other federal agencies. obviously there is the issue of emergency preparedness being a prime example of where we would interact with fema to have an effective review. we would identified the lessons learned that need to be incorporated into any ongoing long-term agency action. evaluating technical and policy issues to identify additional research or generic communications changes to our reactor oversight program. potential new rulemaking.

adjustments for the regulatory framework. they should be conducted by the nrc. as i said, we will evaluate internet's agency issues and look for applicability to non- reactor facilities. i expect this report to have substantial stake for involvement. the outcomes are likely to be the line -- along the lines of generic letter is an bulletin's. so, in conclusion i would like to make it clear that we continue to make our domestic responsibilities of licensing and oversight of the u.s. licensees our top priority. there is an immediate short-term and long-term of celebration that is beginning and they will be influenced by our understanding of the events in

japan. with that, it concludes my presentation and i am ready to answer any questions. >> well, thank you, bill, for that thorough presentation. we have a proposal in front of the commission right now to determine the short-term and long-term reviews. we will take a look at that and provide response in fairly short order again, i would like to reiterate my thanks to the work that has been done over the last several days on this situation, emphasizing the importance of systematic and methodical reviews so that we make sure that we address these issues and really get the facts. making sure that we do not move in a direction that is based on early information, which often tends to be confusing and conflicting. i appreciate the work that you

have done up to this point. i do not have specific questions at this point, but i would turn to the commissioner for other questions. >> by second to the comments about the tremendous efforts the to end all of the staff members have made in supporting the agency's reaction to this event. there is quite a lot that we do not yet know yet the fact that it has come to context for the types of questions we are able to ask about today, very generally i would ask you -- in the staff assessment this morning, do you believe that the events of fukushima have stabilized, or is it reasonable to expects other was? . it reasonable to expect otherwise? >> -- is it reasonable to

expect otherwise? >> we have things turning abound. we believe that the spent fuel whole unpin three and four, significant safety concern component, they are stabilizing. the components of all three units appear to be functional. water is being injected into units one, too, and three. i would say, optimistically, things appear to be on the verge of stabilizing. this has been a very challenging event for us to understand the exact situation. information sometimes conflicts. certainly not at the level that any engineer would like to have.

we spent a lot of time trying to piece together our best understanding. that would be my personal assessment of the situation. >> is it fair to say from that that based on what we understand from the needs that need to be urgently addressed at the site, that those are being addressed? those being be items of highest interest like in the days and weeks to come we will certainly discover other conditions at the site, perhaps of lower levels of priority that we do not know about right now. >> yes, though radiation releases we have seen on site were primarily influenced by the fuel cool. the water inventory questions

uncovered in the spent -- -- pool are of significant concern. i do not believe that we have anywhere near a clear understanding of what plant conditions are like in the reactor people that have been damaged or remained operable are significant announce right now. >> you gave a very high level chronology of the events that occurred as we know them. it really ends up being a narrative of three events that are related to each other. the first being the seismic event. the second being the tsunami. as we might have in the united states a flood surge or flooding event followed by the loss of

power. in terms of what we know about and the three events in succession, do you think that our regulatory focus right doubt is where it needs to be? -- regulatory focus right now is where it needs to be? >> we have continued with the inspection program for u.s. reactors and we have a high degree of confidence that the reactors have an adequate basis to ensure adequate protection. >> thank you. there has been some discussion of what we call generic safety issues, 199, a generic safety issues that are appropriate that we have been nrc for the evaluation of various safety issues. can you talk gave little bit about the ongoing nature of this generic safety issue 199 ongoing

prior to the event of -- the events in japan. how might the events in japan approach that generic safety issue going forward? >> every five years or so the usgs does it review of the u.s. government's understanding of seismic frequencies. recently they put out a report that talked about the seismic information for the east, central eastern united states. that information has been given to the industry. there is an industry that are c evaluations to see if this new information has increased with frequency of a seismic event, causing us to change the seismic

design basis for the plants. as we do any time that we get new information, seismic or otherwise, we do a quick look to make sure that there is no immediate information needed to take regulatory action. if there was, we would certainly do that through the immediate implementation of operating guidelines, systems, or potentially even requirements to shut the reactor down. until the issue was addressed. in that this case we did that review and found no reason to take immediately -- take immediate regulatory reaction. i do not believe that what we have learned from japan would cause a different type of analysis in terms of a broader spotlight for what we are doing. i am confident that the approach

we have been on is the right approach. >> you describe our role in the response. our be cognizant of and are be working to understand efforts that do not conflict with any industry assistance going on? is tokyo electric power reaching out to the nuclear industry or nuclear utilities as we have them in the united states? do we maintain, in essence of that? -- do we maintain cognizance of that? >> it has been ongoing at one level. as many vendors and companies in the united states maintain ongoing business relationship with pepsico and the other generating countries in japan, at the working level it has been going on since the event and

prior to the event. at a higher coordinated industry level i would say that we are still in the formative stages of that interaction. we have had discussions with the industry. it is still evolving. we are cognizant of what is going on. we are trying to help buy and the u.s. government to facilitate the context, if you will, between the japanese and u.s. can -- companies. abdeh >> thank you. my last -- >> thank-you. my last question to you, rapidly implementing generic communications to the industry, in your prepared remarks you talked about the issues from last week. can you don't generally describe what we are alerting the u.s. reactors to? >> the main purpose, from my

perspective, and to supplement my answer if i am not quite succinctly -- assessing -- , is tong -- succinctl verify plan procedures for the types of things that came out of the 9/11 event that all of those pieces of equipment, temporary houses, setting procedures, and all of those things, that they are still in place and that the operators are still cognizant of them. that they have been trained for and for whatever reason to make sure that they have not fallen into disuse because they have not been used. the regulatory initiatives on this front have in fact been taken and we will be following up on the results of those and

doing our own sample and check as we always do. >> so, those were the items based on what we know now as identified as the highest of interest. thank you mr. chairman. >> any other questions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. you mentioned, first of all, that there is a number of lock 1 in the united states that are of the same design as those in fukushima. in the recent past we have harbored venting valves. have the japanese done this? >> that we are not clear on. >> i guess the question is, if they had done it, would it have

affected the accident? >> well, it would not have affected the loss of of site power. the hydrogen explosion aspect, possibly, is where it may have happened. two of the u.s. mark one containment, the preferred path takes suction, if you will, having a release path of the airspace above a pool of water from the basement in the torres of the mark one container. that would allow a form -- allow for the steam to scrub the fission products. it would relieve the pressure, the main objective of the event is to maintain containment integrity. it is possible to prevent it on purpose, to get the pressure so

that you do not have the catastrophic pressure. so that that release path, exterior to the plant, at least it is my belief that you would not have the hydrogen accumulation in the proper levels of the building, which we believe is the cause of the explosions. the spent fuel on these designs are on that same level. the event would not do anything to help hydrogen coming from this. >> you also mentioned that we have designed basis installed after september 11 attacks. did the japanese come in with those? >> again, i am not sure.

really, we are trying to get information. i am not personally aware of the situation in japan. thank you. >> some people are asking -- why did the germans shut down their plants and we did not? are be less prudent than the germans? -- are we less prevalent than the germans? >> i am 100% confident in the review that we have done and continue to do every single day, that we have a sufficient basis to believe our conclusions that the u.s. plants continue to operate. we have asked ourselves that question every single day. it should be taking regulatory action based on the latest information and the kinds of things that i outlined in my

presentation. we have not reached a conclusion. >> thank you. the seismic risk at the forefront of the news, we hear that -- well, first of all we would like to emphasize the seismic design being based on the horizontal products of the nation of the plant. mostly, we think in terms of the richter scale. we also fear that the earthquake of a magnitude nine had not been anticipated. in the united states we say that we design the plants by historical records to add margins. i believe that the strongest earthquakes in the united states

have occurred east of the rocky mountains in the 1800's and the magnitude was between 7.7 -- something like that. immediately you have the question, you have designed against those. look at japan. what about an earthquake of a magnitude nine? how does one answer that question? you can always ask -- what if there is an earthquake of 9.5? is there a rational way of addressing that? >> my explanation, and i know you understand this, looking out at the u.s. we have that information. we look at the historical record abel at what the maximum has been in with everything, we have margins. we also look at the specific

location related to the fault. we consider the soil and rock formations between the sites, doing an analysis to see what would be seen at the site. we designed for an earthquake of a certain size. i am falling into the trap of saying earthquake of a certain size or ground motion. having said that, all of these other things, a severe accident management guidelines and procedures, we have programs in place, equipment in place that says that even if we were wrong and the plant suffered this kind of serious event, we do have, in fact, the activities and equipment ready and practiced to respond to protect public health and safety.

i do not know if i should throw a seismic lifeline here, if you want to get into more detail on seismic issues. >> just say your name >> thank you. my name is dr. and the camera -- just say your name. >> thank you. my name is dr. annie camera. related to the ground motion in japan, recently, starting 2006, the japanese regulatory agency performed a study in but stable at increased perception of hazard at the plant. recently about the waiting the potential for the impact of increased hazard at the facility, as a result a number of modifications were made to the plant. at this point it is not clear

exactly what modifications had already been had or implemented. however, the ground motions, to which the plant was reevaluated, it is 0.62 g, about 70 originally. 0.62 g is in the range of btus motions experienced by the plant -- is in the range of lotions experienced by the plant. the ground experienced -- is in the range of motions experienced by the plant. so, one thing, the ground motions at the plant, even though it was a different event, they were not out of the range of what they had considered. with regards to the tsunami,

currently the japanese society civil engineers finalized probable tsunami hazard assessment guidance is for japan. it was anticipated that the japanese regulator would do a similar study for tsunami hazard assessment as the plants were completed. unfortunately, because the guidance was not yet completed, they were not able to initiate that work. just to clarify, this particular event likely to not exceed ground motion. the one exception to that may be in the long range, because you have at larger amount of the farther away you get for context, it would be anticipated from a 17. the second point is in regards to a seismic hazard in